State of Maharashtra vs Yogesh Dyandev Chougule Advocate - Rupali B. Gavade — 44/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHKO160003772024
Filing Number
258/2024
Filing Date
19-08-2024
Registration No
44/2024
Registration Date
19-08-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
205
Police Station
Shahuwadi Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A. P. P.
Respondent(s)
Yogesh Dyandev Chougule Advocate - Rupali B. Gavade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Malkapur-Shahuwadi.
Disposed
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 07-10-2025 | Evidence |
| 26-08-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Shahuabad, Kolhapur acquitted accused Yogesh Jnandev Chougule of theft charges under IPC Section 379 on March 10, 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the allegations that the accused stole livestock belonging to the complainant without consent. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's sole witness (the complainant) could not provide credible testimony about the incident, admitting lack of clear memory of the events. Additionally, the complainant and accused had reached a settlement, evidenced by a joint petition stating no dispute remained between them. The court concluded the prosecution failed to establish the theft charge beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court Decision: The First Class Magistrate Court at Shahuabad, Kolhapur acquitted accused Yogesh Jnandev Chougule of theft charges under IPC Section 379 on March 10, 2026. The court found insufficient evidence to prove the allegations that the accused stole livestock belonging to the complainant without consent. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's sole witness (the complainant) could not provide credible testimony about the incident, admitting lack of clear memory of the events. Additionally, the complainant and accused had reached a settlement, evidenced by a joint petition stating no dispute remained between them. The court concluded the prosecution failed to establish the theft charge beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts