State of Maharashtra vs Ashok Ganpat Zalte Advocate - Rajput P.K. — 2/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,376(1)(2),(I)(J). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act
CNR: MHAU040000622018
Filing Number
34/2018
Filing Date
20-01-2018
Registration No
2/2018
Registration Date
20-01-2018
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Vaijapur
Judge
3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
115
Police Station
VAIJAPUR
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Maher B.M.
Respondent(s)
Ashok Ganpat Zalte Advocate - Rajput P.K.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 02-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Ganpat Zalte (2/2018) The Additional Sessions Court at Vaijapur acquitted defendant Ashok Ganpat Zalte of charges under IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 376(1)(2)(J)(N) and POCSO Act Section 3(b) with Section 4, finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined the victim's age through school records and found critical evidentiary gaps: the victim and her parents, who were key witnesses, contradicted prosecution claims and did not support the allegations of kidnapping, illegal confinement, or sexual abuse in their testimony, leaving no credible direct evidence of the alleged crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Ganpat Zalte (2/2018) The Additional Sessions Court at Vaijapur acquitted defendant Ashok Ganpat Zalte of charges under IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 376(1)(2)(J)(N) and POCSO Act Section 3(b) with Section 4, finding the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined the victim's age through school records and found critical evidentiary gaps: the victim and her parents, who were key witnesses, contradicted prosecution claims and did not support the allegations of kidnapping, illegal confinement, or sexual abuse in their testimony, leaving no credible direct evidence of the alleged crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts