The State of Maharashtra Through Sinhagad Road Police Station vs Sandeep Gopal Gaud Advocate - Malaviya Atul Premprakash — 781/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,376,376(2)(f),376(2)(n),417. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHPU010098822024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
5559/2024
Filing Date
21-06-2024
Registration No
781/2024
Registration Date
01-07-2024
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
185
Police Station
SINHAGADH ROAD POLICE STATION
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra Through Sinhagad Road Police Station
Adv. Spl PP
Respondent(s)
Sandeep Gopal Gaud Advocate - Malaviya Atul Premprakash
Hearing History
Judge: 12-DISTRICT JUDGE -8 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Disposed
Evidence Part Heard
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 09-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 06-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 17-01-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge in Pune acquitted Sandip Gopal Goud of charges under IPC Sections 363, 376(2)(f)(n) and POCSO Act Sections 5(l)(m)(n)(p), 6, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both key witnesses (the victim's mother and the victim herself) denied the allegations and provided no incriminating evidence, while medical examination revealed no physical injuries, leading the court to grant the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Special Judge in Pune acquitted Sandip Gopal Goud of charges under IPC Sections 363, 376(2)(f)(n) and POCSO Act Sections 5(l)(m)(n)(p), 6, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both key witnesses (the victim's mother and the victim herself) denied the allegations and provided no incriminating evidence, while medical examination revealed no physical injuries, leading the court to grant the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts