STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs Lakhan Arjun Shinde — 9/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,504,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th March 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHBI100002252020

Case disposed

Filing Number

164/2020

Filing Date

27-01-2020

Registration No

9/2020

Registration Date

28-01-2020

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kaij

Judge

3-JT. C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. KAIJ

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

207

Police Station

Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 324,323,504,34

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Respondent(s)

Lakhan Arjun Shinde

Arjun Baburao Shinde

Adv. Munde Anita R.

Hearing History

Judge: 3-JT. C.J.J.D. AND J.M.F.C. KAIJ

30-03-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

09-02-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted both defendants (Lakhan Arjun Shinde, age 22, and Arjun Baburao Shinde, age 56) of all charges under IPC sections 324, 323, 504 with section 34, finding insufficient evidence to prove they intentionally caused injury to the complainant with a deadly weapon on December 19, 2019. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt, as key witness testimonies were contradictory and crucial evidence like the seizure panchnama was not properly corroborated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted both defendants (Lakhan Arjun Shinde, age 22, and Arjun Baburao Shinde, age 56) of all charges under IPC sections 324, 323, 504 with section 34, finding insufficient evidence to prove they intentionally caused injury to the complainant with a deadly weapon on December 19, 2019. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt, as key witness testimonies were contradictory and crucial evidence like the seizure panchnama was not properly corroborated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kaij All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case