STATE OF GUJARAT vs DIPSINH SOMABHAI RATHOD Advocate - S R PATEL — 3/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),117(2),352,351(2),324(5),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th May 2026.

Case disposed

ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO

CNR: GJPM010001282025

Filing Number

3/2025

Filing Date

08-Jan-2025

Registration No

3/2025

Registration Date

09-Jan-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA

Judge

19-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

30-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

920

Police Station

SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),117(2),352,351(2),324(5),54
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(R)(S),3(2)(5-A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. PP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIPSINH SOMABHAI RATHOD Advocate - S R PATEL

  2. 2.BHAVANSINH SOMASINH RATHOD

    Adv. S R PATEL

  3. 3.RANVATSINH DIPSINH RATHOD

    Adv. S R PATEL

  4. 4.MUKESHBHAI BHARATBHAI

    Adv. S R PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Dipsinh Somabhai Rathod (Special ATRO Case No. 03/2025) Court Decision: The Special Court (ATRO) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes atrocity cases acquitted all four accused persons (Dipsinh Somabhai Rathod, Bhavansih Somasih Rathod, Ranvatsih Dipsinh Rathod, and Mukeshbhai Bhartbhai Khant) of charges under the SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention) Act 1989 and IPC sections for allegedly assaulting a scheduled tribe member on October 24, 2024 using caste-based slurs and causing injury. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite nine prosecution witnesses and medical evidence of injuries, as the complainant's identification of attackers was uncertain, contradictions existed between witness accounts, and the defense testimony remained unchallenged, making the allegations insufficiently corroborated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-May-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 21-May-2026

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 15-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  6. 14-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  7. 04-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  8. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  11. 05-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  13. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  14. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  15. 17-Sep-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    6th Addl District Judge

  16. 31-Jul-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    6th Addl District Judge

  17. 20-Jun-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    6th Addl District Judge

  18. 23-May-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    6th Addl District Judge

  19. 27-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 08-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Dipsinh Somabhai Rathod (Special ATRO Case No. 03/2025) Court Decision: The Special Court (ATRO) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes atrocity cases acquitted all four accused persons (Dipsinh Somabhai Rathod, Bhavansih Somasih Rathod, Ranvatsih Dipsinh Rathod, and Mukeshbhai Bhartbhai Khant) of charges under the SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention) Act 1989 and IPC sections for allegedly assaulting a scheduled tribe member on October 24, 2024 using caste-based slurs and causing injury. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite nine prosecution witnesses and medical evidence of injuries, as the complainant's identification of attackers was uncertain, contradictions existed between witness accounts, and the defense testimony remained unchallenged, making the allegations insufficiently corroborated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case