State of Maharashtra vs Pushpa Dattatray Karhale Advocate - LADCS Chief Adv Sanap P.R — 44/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 186,294,332,353,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHBU010009752021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
422/2021
Filing Date
14-09-2021
Registration No
44/2021
Registration Date
14-09-2021
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
14-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Buldana
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
93
Police Station
Buldana
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP Kesale AA
Respondent(s)
Pushpa Dattatray Karhale Advocate - LADCS Chief Adv Sanap P.R
Hearing History
Judge: 14-District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge Buldana
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 02-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 10-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 21-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Buldhana acquitted Pushpa Dattatray Karhale of all charges under IPC Sections 353, 332, 186, 294, and 506, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies between witnesses regarding the incident location, a four-hour delay in filing the FIR, the non-examination of independent witnesses and the medical officer, and insufficient evidence that the accused intentionally obstructed a public servant's duty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Buldhana acquitted Pushpa Dattatray Karhale of all charges under IPC Sections 353, 332, 186, 294, and 506, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies between witnesses regarding the incident location, a four-hour delay in filing the FIR, the non-examination of independent witnesses and the medical officer, and insufficient evidence that the accused intentionally obstructed a public servant's duty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts