State of Maharashtra vs Rajendra s/o Govindrao Suryawanshi Advocate - Kamble Trimbak N — 5/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,332,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th May 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHLA040000392025
Filing Number
19/2025
Filing Date
18-01-2025
Registration No
5/2025
Registration Date
18-01-2025
Court
Additional District Court, Ahmedpur
Judge
1-District Judge 1
Decision Date
18th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
291
Police Station
Ahmedpur
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Patil Mahesh K_DGP11
Respondent(s)
Rajendra s/o Govindrao Suryawanshi Advocate - Kamble Trimbak N
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | Judgment |
| 04-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 5/2025 Court Decision: Rajendra Govindrao Suryawanshi was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 353 and 332 (criminal force and voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While the informant (Technical Officer Santosh Balwad) alleged the accused assaulted him during electric pole installation, two independent eyewitnesses did not support this testimony. Critical admissions revealed the incident occurred on Rambhau's agricultural land without proper permission, and Rambhau's wife objected to the installation—establishing no clear motive or connection linking the accused to the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 5/2025 Court Decision: Rajendra Govindrao Suryawanshi was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 353 and 332 (criminal force and voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While the informant (Technical Officer Santosh Balwad) alleged the accused assaulted him during electric pole installation, two independent eyewitnesses did not support this testimony. Critical admissions revealed the incident occurred on Rambhau's agricultural land without proper permission, and Rambhau's wife objected to the installation—establishing no clear motive or connection linking the accused to the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts