State of Maharashtra vs Rakesh Baburao Devaikar Advocate - C.L.Darekar — 42/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 435. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 07th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA040003762017
Filing Number
333/2017
Filing Date
29-08-2017
Registration No
42/2017
Registration Date
29-08-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Divion , Armori
Judge
1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
FIR Details
FIR Number
64
Police Station
Gadchiroli
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Rakesh Baburao Devaikar Advocate - C.L.Darekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge [Jr.Dn] J.M.F.C. Armori
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 29-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 42/2017 (State of Maharashtra v. Rakesh Baburao Devaikar) Decision: The accused Rakesh Baburao Devaikar was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 435 (mischief by fire/combustible matter). The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The three prosecution witnesses' testimonies were internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory regarding the events of the alleged crop burning incident. The court determined that no witness clearly established who committed the act or how it occurred, and therefore granted the accused the benefit of doubt. The case was closed due to weak evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 42/2017 (State of Maharashtra v. Rakesh Baburao Devaikar) Decision: The accused Rakesh Baburao Devaikar was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 435 (mischief by fire/combustible matter). The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The three prosecution witnesses' testimonies were internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory regarding the events of the alleged crop burning incident. The court determined that no witness clearly established who committed the act or how it occurred, and therefore granted the accused the benefit of doubt. The case was closed due to weak evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts