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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 281
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 184,181

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.

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

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT-KUTIYANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case