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.

Case disposed

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHGO010000232024

Filing Number

14/2024

Filing Date

03-Jan-2024

Registration No

4/2024

Registration Date

03-Jan-2024

Court

District and Session Court , Gondia

Judge

35-District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 363,376(2)(n)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4,6
Child Marriage Restraint Act Section 9,11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra Through PSO Amgaon

    Adv. Chandwani M. S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nitish S/o Chaitram funde (POCSO) Advocate - Bhajipale R.N.

  2. 2.Chaitram Dauna Funde

  3. 3.Gita Chaitram Funde

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  4. 30-Apr-2026

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

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  8. 19-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  9. 07-Oct-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia

  10. 25-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  11. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  12. 09-May-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  13. 24-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  14. 04-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  15. 15-Feb-2025

    List of Witness

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  16. 13-Jan-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  17. 07-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  18. 06-Nov-2024

    List of Witness

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  19. 26-Sep-2024

    Charge

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  20. 04-Jul-2024

    Charge

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  21. 04-May-2024

    Charge

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  22. 18-Mar-2024

    Charge

    District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia

  23. 05-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 03-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case