State of Maharashtra vs Krishna Ganpat Patil — 34/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,504,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHRG010011992023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
338/2023
Filing Date
10-08-2023
Registration No
34/2023
Registration Date
10-08-2023
Court
District and Session Court Raigad
Judge
1-Principal District Sesssions Judge
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
135
Police Station
Revdanda police station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Krishna Ganpat Patil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Sesssions Judge
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 20-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Special Judge at Raigad (Alibag) acquitted Krushna Ganpat Patil of all charges under IPC sections 324, 504, 506 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 sections 92(a) & 92(b). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting material inconsistencies between witness statements and documentary evidence, lack of CCTV footage, and medical evidence supporting the defendant's claim that the complainant accidentally fell while attempting to hold the accused's collar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Special Judge at Raigad (Alibag) acquitted Krushna Ganpat Patil of all charges under IPC sections 324, 504, 506 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 sections 92(a) & 92(b). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting material inconsistencies between witness statements and documentary evidence, lack of CCTV footage, and medical evidence supporting the defendant's claim that the complainant accidentally fell while attempting to hold the accused's collar. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts