Government of Gujarat vs NITESHBHAI S/O ANILBHAI BAVABHAI VALVI Advocate - U N SHAH — 25/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 78(1),78(2),79,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJTP010008862025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

23/2025

Filing Date

28-11-2025

Registration No

25/2025

Registration Date

28-11-2025

Court

DISTRICT COURT, TAPI

Judge

2-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

Decision Date

03rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11824006250887

Police Station

UCHCHHAL POLICE STATION - TAPI DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 78(1),78(2),79,
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 Section 11(4),12,

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. PP

Respondent(s)

NITESHBHAI S/O ANILBHAI BAVABHAI VALVI Advocate - U N SHAH

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

03-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

11-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

09-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

03-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Special POCSO Court in Tapi, Gujarat acquitted the accused of charges under BNS 2023 Sections 78(1), 78(2), 79 and POCSO Act Sections 11(4), 12. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the sexual harassment case beyond reasonable doubt, as the victim's testimony contradicted herself during cross-examination and key witnesses were unavailable, making the evidence circumstantial and unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Special POCSO Court in Tapi, Gujarat acquitted the accused of charges under BNS 2023 Sections 78(1), 78(2), 79 and POCSO Act Sections 11(4), 12. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the sexual harassment case beyond reasonable doubt, as the victim's testimony contradicted herself during cross-examination and key witnesses were unavailable, making the evidence circumstantial and unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT, TAPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case