State of Maharashtra Through PSO Amgaon vs Chandrashekhar Holiram Mandve (Atro.-SC) Advocate - Bagde S.D. — 71/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,323,504,506,294,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHGO010005512024
Filing Number
270/2024
Filing Date
16-04-2024
Registration No
71/2024
Registration Date
16-04-2024
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
63
Police Station
Amgaon
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Amgaon
Adv. Chute V.M.
Respondent(s)
Chandrashekhar Holiram Mandve (Atro.-SC) Advocate - Bagde S.D.
Shubham Pandurang Bhalavi
Chunnilal Hemraj Bhalavi
Hearing History
Judge: 41-District Judge-2 Addl. Sessions Judge Gondia
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence
List of Witness
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-01-2026 | List of Witness |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge at Gondia acquitted all three accused persons (Chandrashekhar Holiram Mandve, Shubham Pandurang Bhalavi, and Chunnilal Hemraj Bhalavi) of charges including obscene language, robbery, criminal assault, and atrocities under the SC/ST Prevention Act, finding that prosecution witnesses failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key witnesses either denied the accusations or provided insufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt regarding the alleged abuse, physical assault, and theft of Rs. 2,000 from the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge at Gondia acquitted all three accused persons (Chandrashekhar Holiram Mandve, Shubham Pandurang Bhalavi, and Chunnilal Hemraj Bhalavi) of charges including obscene language, robbery, criminal assault, and atrocities under the SC/ST Prevention Act, finding that prosecution witnesses failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key witnesses either denied the accusations or provided insufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt regarding the alleged abuse, physical assault, and theft of Rs. 2,000 from the informant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts