Government of Gujarat vs MOHAMMAD DANISH ARIF SHAIKH — 1051/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(2),296(B),351(2),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSR170012322026
Filing Number
1051/2026
Filing Date
24-Mar-2026
Registration No
1051/2026
Registration Date
24-Mar-2026
Court
MUNICIPAL COURT, Surat
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Muni.)
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
ATHWALINES POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MOHAMMAD DANISH ARIF SHAIKH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1051/2026 Court Decision: The defendant Mohammad Danish Arif Shaikh was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 296(b), 351(2), and 54. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's witnesses could not identify the defendant, could not specify what abusive words were allegedly used, and admitted uncertainty about who caused the victim's injuries during the alleged scuffle. The court found insufficient evidence that the defendant made threatening statements or caused the head injury, despite the alleged incident involving multiple persons. The court applied the principle that when prosecution evidence is doubtful, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Muni.)
-
24-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1051/2026
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1051/2026 Court Decision: The defendant Mohammad Danish Arif Shaikh was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 115(2), 296(b), 351(2), and 54. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's witnesses could not identify the defendant, could not specify what abusive words were allegedly used, and admitted uncertainty about who caused the victim's injuries during the alleged scuffle. The court found insufficient evidence that the defendant made threatening statements or caused the head injury, despite the alleged incident involving multiple persons. The court applied the principle that when prosecution evidence is doubtful, the benefit must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts