Government of Gujarat vs KARAN MANUBHAI GOHIL Advocate - T K PATEL — 323/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(I),64(2)(M),. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJSR010134142025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
322/2025
Filing Date
17-10-2025
Registration No
323/2025
Registration Date
17-10-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
2387
Police Station
VARACHHA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. U A PATIL
Respondent(s)
KARAN MANUBHAI GOHIL Advocate - T K PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 21-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 18-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of POCSO Case No. 323/2025 The Surat Special Court acquitted the accused, Karan Manubhai Godhil (age 20), on charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012, and various sections of the IPC (137(2), 87, 64(2)(I), 64(2)(M)). The court found that while the victim was a minor at the time of the incident (17 years 8 months old), the victim's testimony was inconsistent, her statement under IPC Section 183 contradicted her oral evidence, and other medical/forensic evidence could not conclusively prove sexual abuse or abduction against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of POCSO Case No. 323/2025 The Surat Special Court acquitted the accused, Karan Manubhai Godhil (age 20), on charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012, and various sections of the IPC (137(2), 87, 64(2)(I), 64(2)(M)). The court found that while the victim was a minor at the time of the incident (17 years 8 months old), the victim's testimony was inconsistent, her statement under IPC Section 183 contradicted her oral evidence, and other medical/forensic evidence could not conclusively prove sexual abuse or abduction against the accused 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