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

Case disposed

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 452,324,504,506,34

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

23-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Judgment

06-03-2026

Judgment

18-02-2026

Arguments

09-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Kuhi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case