Government of Gujarat vs MUKESHBHAI VINODBHAI RAGHVANI Advocate - V J KOSHIYANIYA — 55/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,63(A),64(2)(I)(M). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJSN010025032025

Filing Number

54/2025

Filing Date

26-Nov-2025

Registration No

55/2025

Registration Date

26-Nov-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

2-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0250585

Police Station

THANGADH POLICE STATION - SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,63(A),64(2)(I)(M)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3(A),4,5(L),12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. DGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUKESHBHAI VINODBHAI RAGHVANI Advocate - V J KOSHIYANIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Summary: Special POCSO Case No. 55/2025 Decision: The accused, Mukeshbhai Vinodbhai Raghvani, is acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 63(k), 64(2)(i)(m) and POCSO Act Sections 3(a), 4, 5(l), 6. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape against the 16-year-old victim. While the victim and her parents testified, their testimonies contained contradictions and lacked corroboration by credible witnesses or medical evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medical examinations did not conclusively establish rape, and forensic reports failed to provide supporting evidence. The prosecution's case was deemed insufficient to meet the rigorous proof standards required in criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  6. 03-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 01-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 30-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 08-Jan-2026

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 26-Dec-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 12-Dec-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 28-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 26-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Special POCSO Case No. 55/2025 Decision: The accused, Mukeshbhai Vinodbhai Raghvani, is acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 63(k), 64(2)(i)(m) and POCSO Act Sections 3(a), 4, 5(l), 6. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape against the 16-year-old victim. While the victim and her parents testified, their testimonies contained contradictions and lacked corroboration by credible witnesses or medical evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medical examinations did not conclusively establish rape, and forensic reports failed to provide supporting evidence. The prosecution's case was deemed insufficient to meet the rigorous proof standards required in criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case