State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Paithan vs Raosaheb Devrao gavle — 1434/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354,323,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHAU090029232020
Filing Number
2562/2020
Filing Date
28-Dec-2020
Registration No
1434/2020
Registration Date
29-Dec-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Paithan
Judge
4-2nd Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
Decision Date
04-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Paithan
Adv. Dhongade N.B.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Raosaheb Devrao gavle
-
2.Sushma Raosaheb Gavale
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-May-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Raosaheb Devrao Gavale & Sushma Raosaheb Gavale (Case 1434/2020) Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 354, 323 with 34, finding the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's single witness provided insufficient corroboration of the alleged indecent assault on the complainant's daughter. Key Reasoning: Although charges were framed for outraging modesty and wrongful restraint, the prosecution could not prove that the accused committed the alleged acts with criminal intent. The complainant's own testimony lacked specificity regarding whether her daughter suffered indecent assault, and no credible evidence supported the prosecution's allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-May-2026
Disposed
2nd Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
29-Jan-2026
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
11-Dec-2025
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
28-Oct-2025
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
01-Oct-2025
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
19-Sep-2025
Arguments
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
18-Jul-2025
Evidence
Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
17-Apr-2025
Evidence
2nd Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
12-Feb-2025
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
06-Jan-2025
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
26-Nov-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
09-Oct-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
22-Aug-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
06-Jun-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
01-Apr-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
15-Feb-2024
Evidence
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
19-Dec-2023
N.B.W._Unready
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
06-Oct-2023
N.B.W._Unready
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
09-Aug-2023
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
11-May-2023
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
16-Jan-2023
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
20-Sep-2022
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
28-Apr-2022
Appearance
2nd Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
09-Feb-2022
Appearance
2nd Jt. CIVIL Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
14-Dec-2021
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
24-Sep-2021
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
18-May-2021
Appearance
3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. And J.M.F.C. Paithan
-
30-Dec-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Dec-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 1434/2020
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Raosaheb Devrao Gavale & Sushma Raosaheb Gavale (Case 1434/2020) Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused under IPC Sections 354, 323 with 34, finding the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution's single witness provided insufficient corroboration of the alleged indecent assault on the complainant's daughter. Key Reasoning: Although charges were framed for outraging modesty and wrongful restraint, the prosecution could not prove that the accused committed the alleged acts with criminal intent. The complainant's own testimony lacked specificity regarding whether her daughter suffered indecent assault, and no credible evidence supported the prosecution's allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts