BALDEVBHAI BUDHAJI DHULAJI CHOUHAN (THAKORE) vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — CR.A/2812/2024

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415(2). Disposed: --38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GJHC240790652024

Filing Number

CR.A/45495/2024

Filing Date

27-Nov-2024

Registration No

CR.A/2812/2024

Registration Date

07-Dec-2024

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

Bench Type

DIVISION

Category

554-DB - APPEAL - AGAINST CONVICTION - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ( 554 )

Sub-Category

2172-DB - APPEAL - AGAINST CONVICTION - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SENTENCE IS AWARDED ABOVE 10 YEARS IN OFFENCES AFFECTING LIFE (SECTION 302, 303, 304, 305, 307 & 311 OF I.P.C.) - IN JAIL ( 2172 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415(2)
Penal Code, 1860 Section 302,201
Gujarat Police Act Section 135(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BALDEVBHAI BUDHAJI DHULAJI CHOUHAN (THAKORE)

    Adv. MR NIRAD D BUCH(

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF

    Summary of High Court of Gujarat Judgment The High Court of Gujarat set aside the death sentence conviction of Baldevbhai Chauhan for the double murder of Vipulbhai Modi and his mother Kanchanben Modi. The court found that while the trial court convicted the accused on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances meeting the legal standard of "must be guilty" rather than "may be guilty." Key evidentiary gaps included: the panch witnesses not supporting the discovery panchnama of weapons, the absence of a mandatory Section 65-B(4) certificate for CCTV footage admissibility, reliance on police statements (Section 161) as substantial evidence contrary to law, and the motive (illicit affair) not being proven through court testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    160-For Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    160-For Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    194-For Final Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    194-For Final Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora , Honourable Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani

  8. 13-Nov-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

  9. 25-Mar-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje

  10. 18-Feb-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje

  11. 11-Feb-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje

  12. 11-Dec-2024

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF

  13. 11-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  14. 27-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR.A/2812/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of High Court of Gujarat Judgment The High Court of Gujarat set aside the death sentence conviction of Baldevbhai Chauhan for the double murder of Vipulbhai Modi and his mother Kanchanben Modi. The court found that while the trial court convicted the accused on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances meeting the legal standard of "must be guilty" rather than "may be guilty." Key evidentiary gaps included: the panch witnesses not supporting the discovery panchnama of weapons, the absence of a mandatory Section 65-B(4) certificate for CCTV footage admissibility, reliance on police statements (Section 161) as substantial evidence contrary to law, and the motive (illicit affair) not being proven through court testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case