Government of India vs HARSHAL RAJESH VASAVE Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1963/2024
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030023572024
Filing Number
1963/2024
Filing Date
05-12-2024
Registration No
1963/2024
Registration Date
05-12-2024
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
11823021241060
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of India
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HARSHAL RAJESH VASAVE 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 |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Harshal Rajesh Vasave of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding insufficient corroborating evidence beyond police testimony. The court held that panchnama witnesses provided no substantive support, no independent witnesses testified to the alleged rash/negligent driving endangering lives, and the prosecution failed to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted accused Harshal Rajesh Vasave of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding insufficient corroborating evidence beyond police testimony. The court held that panchnama witnesses provided no substantive support, no independent witnesses testified to the alleged rash/negligent driving endangering lives, and the prosecution failed to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts