The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Gadhinglaj Police Station, Gadhinglaj. vs Shridhar Arjun Shingate — 20/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376,323,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: MHKO080005092024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

205/2024

Filing Date

12-08-2024

Registration No

20/2024

Registration Date

12-08-2024

Court

Add District Court , Gadhinglaj

Judge

1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

352

Police Station

Gadhinglaj Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 376,323,506,34

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Gadhinglaj Police Station, Gadhinglaj.

Adv. S. A. Teli

Respondent(s)

Shridhar Arjun Shingate

Rahul Netaji Musale

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Gadhinglaj

17-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Judgment

27-02-2026

Judgment

24-02-2026

Arguments

12-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

JUDGMENT SUMMARY The Additional Sessions Judge at Gadhinglaj acquitted both accused (Shridhar Arjun Shingate and Rahul Netaji Musale) of rape (IPC §376), voluntarily causing hurt (§323), and criminal intimidation (§506) charges. The court found critical inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, negative forensic reports showing no semen or blood evidence, medical examination revealing no violence marks, and suspicious circumstances including the victim's silence despite the alleged daytime assault in a populated residential area. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

JUDGMENT SUMMARY The Additional Sessions Judge at Gadhinglaj acquitted both accused (Shridhar Arjun Shingate and Rahul Netaji Musale) of rape (IPC §376), voluntarily causing hurt (§323), and criminal intimidation (§506) charges. The court found critical inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, negative forensic reports showing no semen or blood evidence, medical examination revealing no violence marks, and suspicious circumstances including the victim's silence despite the alleged daytime assault in a populated residential area. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Add District Court , Gadhinglaj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case