VISHAL YOGENDRABHAI BHATT vs RAMESH VEJABHAI MAKWANA(Absconding) Advocate - R.B.JETHWA — 32/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB030000422016
Filing Number
32/2016
Filing Date
07-01-2016
Registration No
32/2016
Registration Date
07-01-2016
Court
TALUKA COURT-RANAVAV
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
88
Police Station
RANAVAV POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VISHAL YOGENDRABHAI BHATT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
RAMESH VEJABHAI MAKWANA(Absconding) Advocate - R.B.JETHWA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 32/2016 Court Decision: The accused, Ramesh Vejabhai Makwana, was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304 (rash driving causing injury/death). The court found insufficient evidence that the accused's reckless or negligent driving caused the accident, as mere high speed alone cannot establish rashness without corroborating evidence of dangerous conduct. Key Reasoning: Following established precedent, the prosecution bears the burden of proving rashness/negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Witness testimony and investigation records failed to establish concrete facts about the truck's speed, accident circumstances, or causation, making conviction unjustifiable under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 32/2016 Court Decision: The accused, Ramesh Vejabhai Makwana, was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304 (rash driving causing injury/death). The court found insufficient evidence that the accused's reckless or negligent driving caused the accident, as mere high speed alone cannot establish rashness without corroborating evidence of dangerous conduct. Key Reasoning: Following established precedent, the prosecution bears the burden of proving rashness/negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Witness testimony and investigation records failed to establish concrete facts about the truck's speed, accident circumstances, or causation, making conviction unjustifiable under criminal law principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts