Government of Gujarat vs SHYAM SURESHBAHI MAHADU SAVNT(RAJPUT) Advocate - C B DESAI — 72/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJSR190006942022

Filing Number

8/2022

Filing Date

13-Jun-2022

Registration No

72/2022

Registration Date

13-Jun-2022

Court

ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI

Judge

1-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214020220397

Police Station

KADODARA GIDC POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 363,366
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(W)(I),3(2)(5)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 8

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHYAM SURESHBAHI MAHADU SAVNT(RAJPUT) Advocate - C B DESAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Court Judgment Summary The Special POCSO Court acquitted Shyam Sureshbhai Mahadu Savant of all charges under sections 363, 366 IPC, SC-ST Act, and POCSO Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority status and that there was no actual abduction—the victim's own testimony revealed she voluntarily accompanied the accused after they met while both worked at a factory. The court noted significant contradictions between the victim's police statement and court testimony, the lack of proper documentary evidence of age, and the absence of any corroborating investigation in Ahmedabad. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  9. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 17-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 02-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 12-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 10-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 26-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  21. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  22. 09-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    5th Addl District Judge

  23. 19-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    5th Addl District Judge

  24. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    5th Addl District Judge

  25. 28-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    5th Addl District Judge

  26. 09-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  27. 13-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  28. 23-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  29. 24-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  30. 10-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  31. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  32. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  33. 19-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  34. 26-Oct-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  35. 21-Sep-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  36. 17-Aug-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  37. 27-Jul-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  38. 26-Jun-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  39. 25-May-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  40. 27-Apr-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  41. 17-Mar-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  42. 15-Feb-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  43. 10-Jan-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  44. 12-Dec-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  45. 18-Nov-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  46. 20-Oct-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  47. 15-Sep-2022

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  48. 30-Aug-2022

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    8th Addl District Judge

  49. 12-Aug-2022

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    8th Addl District Judge

  50. 26-Jul-2022

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    8th Addl District Judge

  51. 11-Jul-2022

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    8th Addl District Judge

  52. 27-Jun-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 13-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 72/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Court Judgment Summary The Special POCSO Court acquitted Shyam Sureshbhai Mahadu Savant of all charges under sections 363, 366 IPC, SC-ST Act, and POCSO Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority status and that there was no actual abduction—the victim's own testimony revealed she voluntarily accompanied the accused after they met while both worked at a factory. The court noted significant contradictions between the victim's police statement and court testimony, the lack of proper documentary evidence of age, and the absence of any corroborating investigation in Ahmedabad. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case