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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(I),64(2)(M),
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 Section 4,5(L),6,

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

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

09-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case