THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DHARMENDRASINH @ CHHOTUBHA JAYENDRASINH ZALA Advocate - T B DOSHI — 15/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 504,506(2),294B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th March 2026.
ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO
CNR: GJMR010003212021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
15/2021
Filing Date
20-02-2021
Registration No
15/2021
Registration Date
20-02-2021
Court
DISTRICT COURT,MORBI
Judge
1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
574
Police Station
HALVAD POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. AGP
Respondent(s)
DHARMENDRASINH @ CHHOTUBHA JAYENDRASINH ZALA Advocate - T B DOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 25-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 23-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Special Judge (Atrocity) at Morbi acquitted the accused Dharmendrasinh Urf Chhotubha Jayendrasinh Jhala under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 294(B), 504, 506(2)) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Section 3(1)(r)(s)). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges with sufficient evidence, as critical witnesses provided contradictory statements during cross-examination, no documentary proof of the disputed path existed, and no concrete evidence proved the alleged abusive language or threats related to caste were used. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The Special Judge (Atrocity) at Morbi acquitted the accused Dharmendrasinh Urf Chhotubha Jayendrasinh Jhala under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 294(B), 504, 506(2)) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Section 3(1)(r)(s)). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges with sufficient evidence, as critical witnesses provided contradictory statements during cross-examination, no documentary proof of the disputed path existed, and no concrete evidence proved the alleged abusive language or threats related to caste were used. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts