Government of Gujarat vs RAFIKBHAI NURMAMADBHAI JAM — 194/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMR020002232026
Filing Number
194/2026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
194/2026
Registration Date
07-Jan-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT, MORBI
Judge
4-3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 05-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
2237
Police Station
MORBI B DIV POLICE STATION- MORBI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAFIKBHAI NURMAMADBHAI JAM
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Rafikbhai Nurmohmadbhai Jaam, of charges under BNS Section 281 (rash driving) and MV Act Sections 177 and 184, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he drove recklessly and endangered public life. The court noted that the panchnama (official record) witnesses failed to substantiate key facts of the case, and critical independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
-
07-Mar-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
-
28-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
-
21-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge And A.C.J.M.
-
31-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 194/2026
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Rafikbhai Nurmohmadbhai Jaam, of charges under BNS Section 281 (rash driving) and MV Act Sections 177 and 184, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he drove recklessly and endangered public life. The court noted that the panchnama (official record) witnesses failed to substantiate key facts of the case, and critical independent witnesses were not examined, creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts