The State of Maharashtra vs Nandkumar Devidas Rathod — 60/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 189(2),191(2),190,115(2),352,351(2),351(3). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 25th May 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHJN100003872025

Filing Number

256/2025

Filing Date

26-Mar-2025

Registration No

60/2025

Registration Date

26-Mar-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Mantha

Judge

1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

Decision Date

25-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

595

Police Station

Mantha

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 189(2),191(2),190,115(2),352,351(2),351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nandkumar Devidas Rathod

  2. 2.Kundlik Devidas Rathod

  3. 3.Chamya @ Sanjay Pandit Rathod

  4. 4.Rajesh Dnyaneswar Rathod

  5. 5.Pravin Dnyaneswar Rathod

  6. 6.Usha Nandkumar Rathod

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Nandkumar Devidas Rathod & Others (Case 60/2025) Court Decision: The court acquitted all nine accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), and related sections. The judge found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although the FIR alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant, his family members, and caused threats and insults on December 1, 2024, the prosecution failed to establish these charges through credible evidence. The three prosecution witnesses (including the complainant) provided testimony that, at best, described only minor verbal disputes rather than the serious physical assaults and threats alleged, and no corroborating medical or forensic evidence definitively linked injuries to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-May-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  4. 18-May-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  5. 08-May-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  6. 27-Apr-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  7. 07-Apr-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  8. 30-Mar-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  9. 16-Mar-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  10. 23-Feb-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  11. 16-Feb-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  12. 23-Jan-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  13. 07-Jan-2026

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

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  14. 26-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  15. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  16. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  17. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence Part Heard

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  18. 03-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  19. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  20. 19-Aug-2025

    Appearance

    Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C

  21. 26-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 26-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 60/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Nandkumar Devidas Rathod & Others (Case 60/2025) Court Decision: The court acquitted all nine accused of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), and related sections. The judge found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although the FIR alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant, his family members, and caused threats and insults on December 1, 2024, the prosecution failed to establish these charges through credible evidence. The three prosecution witnesses (including the complainant) provided testimony that, at best, described only minor verbal disputes rather than the serious physical assaults and threats alleged, and no corroborating medical or forensic evidence definitively linked injuries to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case