GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs NAVINKUMAR SHANABHAI PAGI Advocate - D A SHETH — 9/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),115(2),351(2),64(2)(M),65(1),352. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJPM010007982026

Filing Number

9/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

9/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA

Judge

2-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1100

Police Station

SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),115(2),351(2),64(2)(M),65(1),352
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4,6,12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. M K DESHMUKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAVINKUMAR SHANABHAI PAGI Advocate - D A SHETH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: Special POCSO Case No. 9/2026 Court Decision The Special Judge (POCSO) Court in Godhra acquitted the accused Navinkumar Shanabhai Pagi on June 3, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, which was a foundational requirement for conviction under the POCSO Act and charges of kidnapping/rape. Key Reasoning The court found critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case: 1. Victim's Age Not Proven: School records showed the victim's birth date as 21/4/2010, but this was based on information provided by the parents without documentary evidence of how this date was determined. The Talati (revenue officer) admitted during cross-examination that the basis for recording this date in the village register was unclear. 2. Contradictory Medical Evidence: Ossification tests indicated the victim's age was 15-18 years, but the court noted such medical evidence is not conclusive and must be considered with other material evidence. 3. Victim's Testimony Unreliable: The victim gave contradictory accounts in her FIR statement (under Section 164), magistrate's statement, medical examination history, and court testimony regarding key facts like whether the relationship was consensual, number of times sexual contact occurred, and locations. 4. Procedural Deficiencies: Critical investigative steps were omitted—the village sarpanch's statement was not recorded, the wadi owner where alleged assault occurred was not examined, and the FIR was filed five days late. Conclusion Without proof beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor, the foundational facts for POCSO Act violations and kidnapping charges could not be established. The accused was therefore acquitted and discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 26-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 19-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 08-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 05-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 02-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 30-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 28-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 24-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 22-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 03-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 01-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 30-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  21. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  22. 20-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  23. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  24. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  25. 10-Mar-2026

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  26. 06-Mar-2026

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  27. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Special POCSO Case No. 9/2026 Court Decision The Special Judge (POCSO) Court in Godhra acquitted the accused Navinkumar Shanabhai Pagi on June 3, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, which was a foundational requirement for conviction under the POCSO Act and charges of kidnapping/rape. Key Reasoning The court found critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case: 1. Victim's Age Not Proven: School records showed the victim's birth date as 21/4/2010, but this was based on information provided by the parents without documentary evidence of how this date was determined. The Talati (revenue officer) admitted during cross-examination that the basis for recording this date in the village register was unclear. 2. Contradictory Medical Evidence: Ossification tests indicated the victim's age was 15-18 years, but the court noted such medical evidence is not conclusive and must be considered with other material evidence. 3. Victim's Testimony Unreliable: The victim gave contradictory accounts in her FIR statement (under Section 164), magistrate's statement, medical examination history, and court testimony regarding key facts like whether the relationship was consensual, number of times sexual contact occurred, and locations. 4. Procedural Deficiencies: Critical investigative steps were omitted—the village sarpanch's statement was not recorded, the wadi owner where alleged assault occurred was not examined, and the FIR was filed five days late. Conclusion Without proof beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor, the foundational facts for POCSO Act violations and kidnapping charges could not be established. The accused was therefore acquitted and discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case