THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs DILIPBHAI NANDRAMBHAI HARIYANI Advocate - M R RAVIYA — 153/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,106,125(A),125(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ140002102025
Filing Number
153/2025
Filing Date
27-02-2025
Registration No
153/2025
Registration Date
27-02-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JASDAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213092240535
Police Station
ATKOT POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
DILIPBHAI NANDRAMBHAI HARIYANI Advocate - M R RAVIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 03-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 279, 281, 304-A and relevant Motor Vehicles Act sections in a fatal motor accident case. The court found that while an accident occurred resulting in death, the prosecution failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The absence of eyewitness testimony to the actual accident, combined with the complainant's own admission of not witnessing the incident, rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to prove criminal rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 279, 281, 304-A and relevant Motor Vehicles Act sections in a fatal motor accident case. The court found that while an accident occurred resulting in death, the prosecution failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The absence of eyewitness testimony to the actual accident, combined with the complainant's own admission of not witnessing the incident, rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to prove criminal rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts