The State of Maharashtra vs Gorakh Chintaman Pawar Advocate - Ghanekar N.S. — 1600012/2014
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302.34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHAU040000702014
Filing Number
1600052/2014
Filing Date
29-01-2014
Registration No
1600012/2014
Registration Date
29-01-2014
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court, Vaijapur
Judge
3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
82
Police Station
SHIVOOR
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. Pawar K.N.
Respondent(s)
Gorakh Chintaman Pawar Advocate - Ghanekar N.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-DIST. JUDGE-1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VAIJAPUR
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 20-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Gorakh Chintaman Pawar (SC No. 12/2014) The Additional Sessions Court acquitted all three accused—Gorakh Chintaman Pawar, Laxman Chintaman Pawar, and Kadubai Gorakh Pawar—of murder (IPC §302) and voluntarily causing hurt (IPC §323) charges. While the court confirmed the deceased died by strangulation (homicidal death), it found the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the informant's sole testimony; a two-day delay in filing the FIR without explanation; all eyewitnesses turning hostile; absence of the alleged weapon; and lack of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Gorakh Chintaman Pawar (SC No. 12/2014) The Additional Sessions Court acquitted all three accused—Gorakh Chintaman Pawar, Laxman Chintaman Pawar, and Kadubai Gorakh Pawar—of murder (IPC §302) and voluntarily causing hurt (IPC §323) charges. While the court confirmed the deceased died by strangulation (homicidal death), it found the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the informant's sole testimony; a two-day delay in filing the FIR without explanation; all eyewitnesses turning hostile; absence of the alleged weapon; and lack of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts