GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs VIDHAMKUMAR VINAYASINH KUSHVAHA Advocate - J M SABHAD — 26/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64,(2)(M),65(1),69. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJRJ010028012025

Filing Number

24/2025

Filing Date

21-Mar-2025

Registration No

26/2025

Registration Date

21-Mar-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT

Judge

9-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11208052250100

Police Station

BHAKTINAGAR POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64,(2)(M),65(1),69
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4,6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. DGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIDHAMKUMAR VINAYASINH KUSHVAHA Advocate - J M SABHAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Special POCSO Court in Rajkot acquitted the accused, Vidhmakamar Viaysingh Kushwaha, of charges under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64(2), 69(1) and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Although the victim testimony initially supported the charges of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, critical evidentiary gaps—particularly the absence of corroborating medical evidence of sexual assault and the victim's lack of clear testimony supporting forced intercourse—led the court to acquit the accused, giving him benefit of doubt as per established criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  11. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  12. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. District Judge

  13. 17-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  14. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 30-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 03-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 30-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  21. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  22. 18-Jul-2025

    Framing Of Charge

    4th Addl District Judge

  23. 09-Jul-2025

    Framing Of Charge

    4th Addl District Judge

  24. 23-Jun-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  25. 10-Jun-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    5th Addl District Judge

  26. 26-May-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    5th Addl District Judge

  27. 09-May-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  28. 24-Apr-2025

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  29. 09-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 21-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 26/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Special POCSO Court in Rajkot acquitted the accused, Vidhmakamar Viaysingh Kushwaha, of charges under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64(2), 69(1) and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Although the victim testimony initially supported the charges of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, critical evidentiary gaps—particularly the absence of corroborating medical evidence of sexual assault and the victim's lack of clear testimony supporting forced intercourse—led the court to acquit the accused, giving him benefit of doubt as per established criminal jurisprudence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case