State of Maharashtra P.S..O Aheri vs Raju Narayan Kondagurle Advocate - U.S.Galbale — 23/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 326,504. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 29th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA070003352017
Filing Number
308/2017
Filing Date
08-06-2017
Registration No
23/2017
Registration Date
08-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Divion ,Aheri
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Aheri.
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra P.S..O Aheri
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Raju Narayan Kondagurle Advocate - U.S.Galbale
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Aheri.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 18-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Raju Narayan Kondagurle (Case 23/2017) The court acquitted the accused Raju Narayan Kondagurle of charges under IPC Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 504 (intentional insult). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused serious injuries to the complainant with a wooden stick during an altercation over irrigation water on August 21, 2016, as the only eyewitness was the complainant himself, related witnesses had contradictions, and crucial forensic evidence was inconclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Raju Narayan Kondagurle (Case 23/2017) The court acquitted the accused Raju Narayan Kondagurle of charges under IPC Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 504 (intentional insult). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused serious injuries to the complainant with a wooden stick during an altercation over irrigation water on August 21, 2016, as the only eyewitness was the complainant himself, related witnesses had contradictions, and crucial forensic evidence was inconclusive. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts