The State of Maharashtra (Pimpalner) vs Ashok Vasant Gavali etc 3 Advocate - Salunke Mohandas B. — 161/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,149,325,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHDH050013942017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1253/2017
Filing Date
01-11-2017
Registration No
161/2017
Registration Date
01-11-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri
Judge
13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
49
Police Station
Pimpalner
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra (Pimpalner)
Respondent(s)
Ashok Vasant Gavali etc 3 Advocate - Salunke Mohandas B.
Nandkumar Ashok Gavande.
Chandrakant Ashok Gavande.
Hearing History
Judge: 13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class in Sakri, Dhule acquitted all three accused (Ashok Vasant Gawali, Nandukumar Ashok Gawande, and Chandrakant Ashok Gawande) of charges under IPC Sections 143, 149, 325, 323, 504, 506 and Mumbai Police Act Section 135. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of independent corroboration despite the incident occurring in a crowded market, and lack of conclusive medical evidence linking injuries to the alleged assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class in Sakri, Dhule acquitted all three accused (Ashok Vasant Gawali, Nandukumar Ashok Gawande, and Chandrakant Ashok Gawande) of charges under IPC Sections 143, 149, 325, 323, 504, 506 and Mumbai Police Act Section 135. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of independent corroboration despite the incident occurring in a crowded market, and lack of conclusive medical evidence linking injuries to the alleged assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts