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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 281,

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

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

23-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, AHWA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case