The State of Maharashtra through Jejuri P stn. Targeted Case vs Rushikesh Satish Sakat Advocate - Patil Deepak Abhimanyu — 906/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366A,376(2)(N). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHPU010175512021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10909/2021
Filing Date
22-11-2021
Registration No
906/2021
Registration Date
23-11-2021
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
8-DISTRICT JUDGE -6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
431
Police Station
Jejuri Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra through Jejuri P stn. Targeted Case
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Rushikesh Satish Sakat Advocate - Patil Deepak Abhimanyu
Hearing History
Judge: 8-DISTRICT JUDGE -6 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted Rushikesh Satish Sakat of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act Sections 4 & 10. The judge found that the victim eloped with the accused willingly and they subsequently married, with both the victim and her mother withdrawing their complaint. The court ruled that the victim's age was not properly proven and that there was no evidence of sexual relations prior to marriage, therefore failing to establish kidnapping or rape charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted Rushikesh Satish Sakat of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and POCSO Act Sections 4 & 10. The judge found that the victim eloped with the accused willingly and they subsequently married, with both the victim and her mother withdrawing their complaint. The court ruled that the victim's age was not properly proven and that there was no evidence of sexual relations prior to marriage, therefore failing to establish kidnapping or rape charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts