The State of Maharashtra vs Vikas Jayram Jagtapetc 2 Advocate - Thakare Ramesh J — 60056/2013

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,341,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHNS110016262013

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

600056/2013

Filing Date

26-04-2013

Registration No

60056/2013

Registration Date

26-04-2013

Court

Civil Court Senior Division ,Niphad

Judge

1-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C.

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

24

Police Station

NIPHAD POLICE STATION

Year

2013

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 394,341,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

The State of Maharashtra

Adv. A.P.P

Respondent(s)

Vikas Jayram Jagtapetc 2 Advocate - Thakare Ramesh J

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C.

10-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

04-03-2026

Evidence

12-01-2026

Evidence

03-12-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court acquitted two accused (Vikash Jayram Jagtap and Chandrakant Baburao Khadtale) of charges under IPC Sections 394, 341, 504, 506 with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to weak and contradictory witness testimony. The third accused (Sunil Mhasu Avhad) died during proceedings, and the case against him was abated; his property was ordered to be produced in court as per CrPC Section 437-A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted two accused (Vikash Jayram Jagtap and Chandrakant Baburao Khadtale) of charges under IPC Sections 394, 341, 504, 506 with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to weak and contradictory witness testimony. The third accused (Sunil Mhasu Avhad) died during proceedings, and the case against him was abated; his property was ordered to be produced in court as per CrPC Section 437-A. 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 Court Senior Division ,Niphad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case