Government of Gujarat vs VIRAM HAJABHAI BHUTIYA Advocate - D K SONDARVA — 731/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB040008612025
Filing Number
731/2025
Filing Date
11-11-2025
Registration No
731/2025
Registration Date
11-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
489
Police Station
KUTIYANA POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
VIRAM HAJABHAI BHUTIYA Advocate - D K SONDARVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
WARRANT OF ARREST
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ARREST |
| 12-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Section 281 and MVA Sections 184 and 181, finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient—key witnesses provided contradictory statements, the investigating officer failed to examine independent witnesses, and critical details about the incident (vehicle speed, location specifics) were either not recorded or contradicted in testimonies. Applying the principle that any doubt benefits the accused, the court set aside the conviction and imposed a nominal fine of ₹5,000 as compensation under Section 278 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Section 281 and MVA Sections 184 and 181, finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient—key witnesses provided contradictory statements, the investigating officer failed to examine independent witnesses, and critical details about the incident (vehicle speed, location specifics) were either not recorded or contradicted in testimonies. Applying the principle that any doubt benefits the accused, the court set aside the conviction and imposed a nominal fine of ₹5,000 as compensation under Section 278 IPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts