State of Maharashtra P.S.O Kuhi vs Bhaurao Ramaji Narule and 1 Advocate - D.S.WANJARI — 110/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 452,324,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
R.C.C. - Reg.Cri.Case
CNR: MHNG110007882022
Filing Number
689/2022
Filing Date
02-09-2022
Registration No
110/2022
Registration Date
02-09-2022
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Kuhi
Judge
1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
281
Police Station
Kuhi
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra P.S.O Kuhi
Adv. A.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Bhaurao Ramaji Narule and 1 Advocate - D.S.WANJARI
Atul Bhaurao Narule
Adv. D.S.WANJARI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 18-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted both accused (Bhaurao Ramaji Narule, 48, and his son Atul Bhaurao Narule, 25) of charges under IPC sections 452, 324, 504, 506 and section 34. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant's house and assaulted him and his family members with a torch due to a land dispute. Key evidentiary gaps included: the scene of crime witness absconding, discrepancies between witness testimonies and medical evidence regarding injury locations, absence of independent eyewitnesses, and lack of proper documentation of the seized weapon, rendering the case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted both accused (Bhaurao Ramaji Narule, 48, and his son Atul Bhaurao Narule, 25) of charges under IPC sections 452, 324, 504, 506 and section 34. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant's house and assaulted him and his family members with a torch due to a land dispute. Key evidentiary gaps included: the scene of crime witness absconding, discrepancies between witness testimonies and medical evidence regarding injury locations, absence of independent eyewitnesses, and lack of proper documentation of the seized weapon, rendering the case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts