Archana Raju Shagaokar vs Vijay Ramkrushna Savle Advocate - Sancheti R.D — 4/2018
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 372. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.
Cri.Appeal
CNR: MHBU110000242018
Filing Number
21/2018
Filing Date
08-01-2018
Registration No
4/2018
Registration Date
08-01-2018
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Malkapur
Judge
1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Archana Raju Shagaokar
Adv. Wankhede BS
Respondent(s)
Vijay Ramkrushna Savle Advocate - Sancheti R.D
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-02-2026 | Order |
| 27-01-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur dismissed the victim's criminal appeal against the accused's acquittal on charges under IPC Sections 452 (house trespass) and 354B (outraging modesty). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing material inconsistencies in the victim's evidence (contradictions about doors), unexplained 37-hour delay in filing the FIR, lack of credible eyewitnesses, and circumstances suggesting possible false implication due to prior land dispute enmity between the accused's relative and the victim's husband. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur dismissed the victim's criminal appeal against the accused's acquittal on charges under IPC Sections 452 (house trespass) and 354B (outraging modesty). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing material inconsistencies in the victim's evidence (contradictions about doors), unexplained 37-hour delay in filing the FIR, lack of credible eyewitnesses, and circumstances suggesting possible false implication due to prior land dispute enmity between the accused's relative and the victim's husband. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts