STATE OF GUJARAT vs RAHULBHAI CHANDRASINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S R VASAVA — 22/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),352,351(2)(3),54,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR100000232025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
22/2025
Filing Date
09-01-2025
Registration No
22/2025
Registration Date
09-01-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, UMARPADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
347
Police Station
UMARPADA POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
RAHULBHAI CHANDRASINGBHAI VASAVA Advocate - S R VASAVA
CHANDRASINGBHAI RUPAJIBHAI VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 31-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 16-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada, Surat acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the complainant's testimony lacked cogency and quality, witnesses were largely related to the complainant, and critical inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's case, particularly regarding delayed FIR registration without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Umarpada, Surat acquitted both defendants of charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), and 54, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the complainant's testimony lacked cogency and quality, witnesses were largely related to the complainant, and critical inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's case, particularly regarding delayed FIR registration without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts