State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Nargunda vs Sanjay Peka Pada Advocate - Bandu M Atram — 22/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376,376(2)(j)(n),376(3). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.

Spl.Case

CNR: MHGA130001492024

Case disposed

Filing Number

106/2024

Filing Date

29-04-2024

Registration No

22/2024

Registration Date

29-04-2024

Court

District and Additional Sessions Court Aheri

Judge

2-District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 376,376(2)(j)(n),376(3)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4,6

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Nargunda

Adv. DGP/AGP

Respondent(s)

Sanjay Peka Pada Advocate - Bandu M Atram

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

02-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

25-02-2026

Evidence

14-01-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Peka Pada Case No. 22/2024 | Special POCSO Court, Aheregaon, Gadchiroli District Decision (April 2, 2026): The court acquitted accused Sanjay Peka Pada of charges under IPC sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and POCSO Act sections 4-6, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The victim's testimony was unreliable—she retracted key claims during cross-examination, including denying she visited the alleged incident location or that the accused made marriage promises. The prosecution failed to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt despite the scene inspection report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Peka Pada Case No. 22/2024 | Special POCSO Court, Aheregaon, Gadchiroli District Decision (April 2, 2026): The court acquitted accused Sanjay Peka Pada of charges under IPC sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and POCSO Act sections 4-6, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations. The victim's testimony was unreliable—she retracted key claims during cross-examination, including denying she visited the alleged incident location or that the accused made marriage promises. The prosecution failed to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt despite the scene inspection report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Additional Sessions Court Aheri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case