THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs ARJUNBHAI RUPSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1248/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030014052025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1248/2025
Filing Date
30-07-2025
Registration No
1248/2025
Registration Date
30-07-2025
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
11823021250010
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ARJUNBHAI RUPSINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Arjunbhai Rupsinghbhai Vasava, of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without a valid license). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove the vehicle recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life, as the testimony of the two panchas (witnesses) at the spot inspection was not corroborated by any independent evidence, and no separate witness testified to the alleged rash driving despite the incident occurring on a public road. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Arjunbhai Rupsinghbhai Vasava, of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without a valid license). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove the vehicle recklessly or negligently in a manner endangering human life, as the testimony of the two panchas (witnesses) at the spot inspection was not corroborated by any independent evidence, and no separate witness testified to the alleged rash driving despite the incident occurring on a public road. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts