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

Case disposed

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 379

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.

10-03-2026

Disposed

27-01-2026

Arguments

25-11-2025

Evidence

07-10-2025

Evidence

26-08-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Malkapur Shauwadi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case