Government of gujarat vs DIPAKBHAI BHANGABHAI VASAVE Advocate - R A VASAVA — 171/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030001942025
Filing Number
171/2025
Filing Date
22-01-2025
Registration No
171/2025
Registration Date
22-01-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823021241348
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
DIPAKBHAI BHANGABHAI VASAVE Advocate - R A VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgment Summary The Sagbara Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Deepakbhai Bhangabhai Vasave of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while panchnama (site inspection) witnesses could not substantiate the case and no independent corroborating evidence was presented, the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements required to convict for rash or negligent driving that endangered human life. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Judgment Summary The Sagbara Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted Deepakbhai Bhangabhai Vasave of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while panchnama (site inspection) witnesses could not substantiate the case and no independent corroborating evidence was presented, the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements required to convict for rash or negligent driving that endangered human life. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts