State Of Maharashtra Yawat Police Statin vs Foujsinh @ Ajay Ratansinh Chotodiya Advocate - More Vijaysinh Nanasaheb — 73/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd April 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: MHPU140008202022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

463/2022

Filing Date

17-03-2022

Registration No

73/2022

Registration Date

24-03-2022

Court

Additional District Court, Baramati

Judge

4-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESSION JUDGE BARAMATI

Decision Date

02nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

968

Police Station

YAWAT P.S.

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 302

Petitioner(s)

State Of Maharashtra Yawat Police Statin

Adv. A.p.P.

Respondent(s)

Foujsinh @ Ajay Ratansinh Chotodiya Advocate - More Vijaysinh Nanasaheb

Hearing History

Judge: 4-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESSION JUDGE BARAMATI

02-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

Judgment

18-03-2026

Arguments

13-03-2026

Arguments

07-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

02-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Baramati District Court acquitted Faujasinh @ Ajay Ratansinh Chitodiya of murder charges (IPC Section 302) in the death of his father Ratansinh Chitodiya. While the court confirmed the death was homicidal (caused by head injury), it found the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the sole eyewitness (accused's wife) was not examined, and circumstantial evidence had critical gaps. The accused was acquitted on 02/04/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Baramati District Court acquitted Faujasinh @ Ajay Ratansinh Chitodiya of murder charges (IPC Section 302) in the death of his father Ratansinh Chitodiya. While the court confirmed the death was homicidal (caused by head injury), it found the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the sole eyewitness (accused's wife) was not examined, and circumstantial evidence had critical gaps. The accused was acquitted on 02/04/2026. 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

Additional District Court, Baramati All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case