Government of Gujarat vs SAPATBHAI RAMUBHAI KAMADI Advocate - P M BAGUL — 1279/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNV070015902025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1279/2025
Filing Date
30-12-2025
Registration No
1279/2025
Registration Date
30-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, AHWA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11219002250573
Police Station
AHWA POLICE STATION - DANGS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SAPATBHAI RAMUBHAI KAMADI Advocate - P M BAGUL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 31-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahwa acquitted Sampatbhai Ramubhai Kamadi of charges under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (rash/negligent driving endangering human life). The court found the prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or prove rash/negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, as panch witnesses did not corroborate the allegations, no independent witnesses testified, and the complainant did not specify the motorcycle's speed. The court held that mere carelessness or error of judgment is insufficient; criminal negligence must be proven with concrete evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahwa acquitted Sampatbhai Ramubhai Kamadi of charges under Section 281 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (rash/negligent driving endangering human life). The court found the prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or prove rash/negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, as panch witnesses did not corroborate the allegations, no independent witnesses testified, and the complainant did not specify the motorcycle's speed. The court held that mere carelessness or error of judgment is insufficient; criminal negligence must be proven with concrete evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts