State of Maharashtra Through PSO Amgaon vs Nitish S/o Chaitram funde (POCSO) Advocate - Bhajipale R.N. — 4/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,376(2)(n). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th May 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHGO010000232024
Filing Number
14/2024
Filing Date
03-01-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
03-01-2024
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Amgaon
Adv. Chandwani M. S.
Respondent(s)
Nitish S/o Chaitram funde (POCSO) Advocate - Bhajipale R.N.
Chaitram Dauna Funde
Gita Chaitram Funde
Hearing History
Judge: 35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-04-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge acquitted all three accused (Nitesh Funde, Chaitram Funde, and Geeta Funde) of charges under IPC sections 363 and 376(2)(n), POCSO Act section 6, and Child Marriage Act sections 9 and 11. The court found the prosecution failed to reliably prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses, as the age documents were based on unproduced primary school records, citing precedent that evidence from the first attended school is necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge acquitted all three accused (Nitesh Funde, Chaitram Funde, and Geeta Funde) of charges under IPC sections 363 and 376(2)(n), POCSO Act section 6, and Child Marriage Act sections 9 and 11. The court found the prosecution failed to reliably prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses, as the age documents were based on unproduced primary school records, citing precedent that evidence from the first attended school is necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts