GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs PATEL ALPESH VITHTHALBHAI Advocate - R D KURESHI-G/910/2001 — 118/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH120002442024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

118/2024

Filing Date

15-02-2024

Registration No

118/2024

Registration Date

15-02-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, UNJHA

Judge

2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 279,337,338,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 177,184,

Petitioner(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

PATEL ALPESH VITHTHALBHAI Advocate - R D KURESHI-G/910/2001

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

07-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

24-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

10-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused (Alpesh Bhai) of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, and MV Act Sections 177 and 184. While the complainant alleged that the accused recklessly hit the complainant's motorcycle with his car on May 19, 2023, causing injuries, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps—including that no eyewitness directly observed the accused driving, the complainant could not identify the driver, and the complainant delayed filing the complaint by five months—created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused (Alpesh Bhai) of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, and MV Act Sections 177 and 184. While the complainant alleged that the accused recklessly hit the complainant's motorcycle with his car on May 19, 2023, causing injuries, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps—including that no eyewitness directly observed the accused driving, the complainant could not identify the driver, and the complainant delayed filing the complaint by five months—created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, UNJHA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case