State of Maharashtra Through PSO Dugeepar vs Bhimraj Insaram Rajgire other -2 Advocate - Gupta V.W. — 298/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294,323. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGO050006182018
Filing Number
566/2018
Filing Date
30-11-2018
Registration No
298/2018
Registration Date
30-11-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division ,Sadakarjuni
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Sadak Arjuni
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
264
Police Station
Duggipar
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Dugeepar
Adv. Gahane O.S.
Respondent(s)
Bhimraj Insaram Rajgire other -2 Advocate - Gupta V.W.
Rekhabai Bhimraj Rajgire
Adv. Gupta V.W.
Lokesh (Lalit) Bhimraj Rajgire
Adv. Gupta V.W.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. And JMFC Sadak Arjuni
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-12-2025 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted all three defendants (Bhimraj Insaram Rajgire, Rekha Bhimraj Rajgire, and Lokesh alias Lalit Bhimraj Rajgire) of charges under IPC Sections 294, 323, 504 with Section 34, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical evidentiary gaps including lack of independent witnesses, credibility issues with complainant witnesses who had prior disputes over agricultural land, absence of corroborating medical evidence, and insufficient proof that the incident occurred at a public place as required by Section 294. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted all three defendants (Bhimraj Insaram Rajgire, Rekha Bhimraj Rajgire, and Lokesh alias Lalit Bhimraj Rajgire) of charges under IPC Sections 294, 323, 504 with Section 34, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment noted critical evidentiary gaps including lack of independent witnesses, credibility issues with complainant witnesses who had prior disputes over agricultural land, absence of corroborating medical evidence, and insufficient proof that the incident occurred at a public place as required by Section 294. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts