State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Akot Gramin vs Sau. Shital Nitin Kokate — 96/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,504,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHAK060012672024
Filing Number
745/2024
Filing Date
20-05-2024
Registration No
96/2024
Registration Date
20-05-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Akot
Judge
3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Akot
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Akot Gramin
Adv. A.G.P./A.P.P
Respondent(s)
Sau. Shital Nitin Kokate
Nitin Uttamrao Kokate
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Akot
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 19-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted both defendants, Shital Nitin Kokate and Nitin Uttamrao Kokate, of charges under IPC Sections 324 and 504 with Section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent with his initial complaint, the panch witness denied witnessing the alleged crime scene and seizure proceedings, and crucial documentary evidence could not prove the charges despite the defendants accepting its validity. The court ruled that the charges were not sufficiently substantiated by credible evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted both defendants, Shital Nitin Kokate and Nitin Uttamrao Kokate, of charges under IPC Sections 324 and 504 with Section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant's testimony was inconsistent with his initial complaint, the panch witness denied witnessing the alleged crime scene and seizure proceedings, and crucial documentary evidence could not prove the charges despite the defendants accepting its validity. The court ruled that the charges were not sufficiently substantiated by credible evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts