BHIKHUMIYA RAJUMIYA AOD MUSALAMAN vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R B DARJI — 198/2024

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd April 2026.

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJMH150013202024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

198/2024

Filing Date

02-09-2024

Registration No

198/2024

Registration Date

02-09-2024

Court

ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VISNAGAR

Judge

4-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

23rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

139

Police Station

UNJHA POLICE STATION - MEHSANA DISTRICT

Year

1995

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 415,

Petitioner(s)

BHIKHUMIYA RAJUMIYA AOD MUSALAMAN

Adv. M S MEMAN

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R B DARJI

Hearing History

Judge: 4-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

23-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

27-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

10-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

03-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

23-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court allowed the appeal and acquitted appellant/accused no. 1 (Bhikhimiya Rajumiya) of charges under IPC sections 326, 323, and 504 due to insufficient and unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found critical deficiencies in the case: the complainant failed to identify the accused properly, eyewitnesses were not examined, medical evidence was not presented, and the five witnesses' testimony lacked proper corroboration, warranting the accused's acquittal and providing him the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the appeal and acquitted appellant/accused no. 1 (Bhikhimiya Rajumiya) of charges under IPC sections 326, 323, and 504 due to insufficient and unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found critical deficiencies in the case: the complainant failed to identify the accused properly, eyewitnesses were not examined, medical evidence was not presented, and the five witnesses' testimony lacked proper corroboration, warranting the accused's acquittal and providing him the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VISNAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case