CW-2024-0001Jamnagar, GujaratJudgment 9 January 2024

Jamjodhpur Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS) and others vs State of Gujarat

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. consider replacing victim name with role noun per R43. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 9 January 2024 in R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State), the Gujarat High Court (Coram: Ashutosh Shastri, Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 7 police personnel, namely: Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS), Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur; Police officer; Police Sub-Inspector, Dhrafa; Police personnel; Police personnel; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur.

Register number
GJ 10 CW 0004
Case reference
R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)
Court and date
Gujarat High Court (Coram: Ashutosh Shastri, Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ.), 9 January 2024
Officer(s) at the material time
Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS), Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur; Police officer; Police Sub-Inspector, Dhrafa; Police personnel; Police personnel; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“We are of the view that prosecution has proved case against respective accused / convicts and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trail Court.” (at para 24)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment.
Present status of the proceedings
Supreme Court of India, 29 April 2025: appeal pending.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Gujarat High Court judgment dated 9 January 2024 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial deathPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“We are of the view that prosecution has proved case against respective accused / convicts and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trail Court.” (para 24)

Institutional response

3
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)
Not yet re-checked.
9 Jan 2024

Order issued

Concluded
Gujarat High Court External · Binding

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)
Not yet re-checked.
29 Apr 2025

Appeal pending

Pending
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

As of 29 April 2025, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld] [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.

Source: LiveLaw
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.