GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SANDIPBHAI KANTIBHAI DAMOR Advocate - T R PATEL — 66/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(M),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJPM010041682025
Filing Number
66/2025
Filing Date
05-Dec-2025
Registration No
66/2025
Registration Date
05-Dec-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA
Judge
2-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
635
Police Station
MORVA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SANDIPBHAI KANTIBHAI DAMOR Advocate - T R PATEL
-
2.DILIPBHAI LALABHAI DAMOR
Adv. T R PATEL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: 66/2025 Court Decision: Both accused, Sandipbhai Kantibhai Damor and Dilipbhai Lalabhai Damor, were acquitted of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 54 and POCSO Act Sections 4, 6, 12, 17. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. Documentary evidence regarding the victim's birth date was unreliable, and the victim's own testimony indicated she voluntarily accompanied the accused. Following Supreme Court precedent (*S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras*), the court held that consensual departure with inadequate inducement evidence does not constitute kidnapping. Additionally, no scientific or direct evidence conclusively established sexual assault, and the victim did not testify regarding non-consensual physical contact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
4th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
4th Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
4th Addl District Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Further Statement
4th Addl District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Further Statement
4th Addl District Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
23-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
05-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
22-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Dec-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
4th Addl District Judge
-
11-Dec-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
4th Addl District Judge
-
08-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 66/2025
Case Summary: 66/2025 Court Decision: Both accused, Sandipbhai Kantibhai Damor and Dilipbhai Lalabhai Damor, were acquitted of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 54 and POCSO Act Sections 4, 6, 12, 17. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. Documentary evidence regarding the victim's birth date was unreliable, and the victim's own testimony indicated she voluntarily accompanied the accused. Following Supreme Court precedent (*S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras*), the court held that consensual departure with inadequate inducement evidence does not constitute kidnapping. Additionally, no scientific or direct evidence conclusively established sexual assault, and the victim did not testify regarding non-consensual physical contact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts