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.

Case disposed

Spl.Case

CNR: MHGA130001492024

Filing Number

106/2024

Filing Date

29-Apr-2024

Registration No

22/2024

Registration Date

29-Apr-2024

Court

District and Additional Sessions Court Aheri

Judge

2-District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 29-May-2026

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)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Nargunda

    Adv. DGP/AGP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sanjay Peka Pada Advocate - Bandu M Atram

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

  5. 12-Mar-2026

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

    District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Aheri

  7. 14-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  8. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  9. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  10. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  11. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  12. 02-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  13. 08-May-2025

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  14. 20-Mar-2025

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  15. 14-Jan-2025

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  16. 21-Dec-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  17. 22-Nov-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  18. 22-Oct-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  19. 24-Sep-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  20. 28-Aug-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  21. 22-Jul-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  22. 15-Jun-2024

    —

    District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri

  23. 29-Apr-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 29-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 22/2024

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case