The State Of Maharashtra vs Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad Advocate - KAD P. N. — 781/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A,337,338. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case

CNR: MHJN060020492022

e-Filing Number

11-08-2022

Filing Number

2047/2022

Filing Date

02-Sep-2022

Registration No

781/2022

Registration Date

02-Sep-2022

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

83

Police Station

Bhokardan

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A,337,338
Motor Vehicles Act Section 134,177

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad Advocate - KAD P. N.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Copy of Judgment

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad (Case 781/2022) The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bhokardan acquitted accused Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad of charges under IPC sections 304-A (death by negligence), 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt), and 338 (causing injury). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused recklessly drove vehicle MH-21-BM-2947 on 11.01.2022, causing the death of Mahadu Maroti Misal and injuring him. Key witness testimony was inconclusive—the complainant acknowledged not witnessing the incident, and other witnesses did not support the prosecution narrative. The investigating officer also failed to appear despite summons. The court held insufficient evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  6. 04-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  7. 25-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  8. 20-Aug-2025

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

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  9. 15-Jul-2025

    Evidence

  10. 15-Jul-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  11. 28-Apr-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  12. 13-Mar-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  13. 18-Jan-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  14. 11-Dec-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  15. 14-Oct-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  16. 10-Jul-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  17. 18-Mar-2024

    Evidence Part Heard

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  18. 12-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  19. 17-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  20. 26-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  21. 20-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  22. 02-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  23. 30-Nov-2022

    Appearance

    C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. Bhokardan..

  24. 02-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 02-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 781/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad (Case 781/2022) The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bhokardan acquitted accused Yogesh Tukaram Gaikwad of charges under IPC sections 304-A (death by negligence), 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt), and 338 (causing injury). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused recklessly drove vehicle MH-21-BM-2947 on 11.01.2022, causing the death of Mahadu Maroti Misal and injuring him. Key witness testimony was inconclusive—the complainant acknowledged not witnessing the incident, and other witnesses did not support the prosecution narrative. The investigating officer also failed to appear despite summons. The court held insufficient evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case