STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAVIRAJ DILIPBHAI NAYAK Advocate - K D MALEK — 27/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 74,75(2),75(3),76,352. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th March 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJPM170010022025
Filing Number
27/2025
Filing Date
08-07-2025
Registration No
27/2025
Registration Date
08-07-2025
Court
ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
187
Police Station
PAVAGADH POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. AGP
Respondent(s)
RAVIRAJ DILIPBHAI NAYAK Advocate - K D MALEK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 12-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Raviraj Dilipbhai Nayak Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical deficiencies: (1) the victim's alleged minor status could not be established—both parents admitted they couldn't recall her exact birth date, contradicting the birth certificate; (2) all three primary witnesses (victim, mother, father) turned hostile and denied the alleged sexual assault; (3) no independent evidence corroborated the incident; and (4) investigative gaps were unexplained, including how the accused accessed a locked school building on a holiday. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Raviraj Dilipbhai Nayak Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical deficiencies: (1) the victim's alleged minor status could not be established—both parents admitted they couldn't recall her exact birth date, contradicting the birth certificate; (2) all three primary witnesses (victim, mother, father) turned hostile and denied the alleged sexual assault; (3) no independent evidence corroborated the incident; and (4) investigative gaps were unexplained, including how the accused accessed a locked school building on a holiday. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts