Government of Gujarat vs Dayashankar Murahu Kharvar Advocate - M R VASAVA — 471/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285. Disposed: Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJNR020005832026

e-Filing Number

12-02-2026

Filing Number

471/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

471/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT RAJPIPLA

Judge

2-2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PLEAD GUILTY

Last updated 06-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

68

Police Station

AAMLETHA POLICE STATION - NARMADA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 285

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dayashankar Murahu Kharvar Advocate - M R VASAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court convicted the accused Diyashankar Murahu Kharwar under IPC Section 285 (negligent conduct with fire) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100, with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's voluntary confession, poor socio-economic circumstances, and lack of prior criminal intent as mitigating factors in imposing a lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 471/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court convicted the accused Diyashankar Murahu Kharwar under IPC Section 285 (negligent conduct with fire) and sentenced him to a fine of ₹100, with an alternative imprisonment of 2 days if the fine remains unpaid. The court considered the accused's voluntary confession, poor socio-economic circumstances, and lack of prior criminal intent as mitigating factors in imposing a lenient sentence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case