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
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
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
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts