The State Through Nagothane Police Station vs Lajib Samad Khan and 2 Advocate - Patil M.D. — 44/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 353,332,34,. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHRG150003052023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
156/2023
Filing Date
06-05-2023
Registration No
44/2023
Registration Date
06-05-2023
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon
Judge
1-District Judge 2 and Addl Session Judge Mangaon
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
74
Police Station
Nagothane Police Stn.
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Through Nagothane Police Station
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Lajib Samad Khan and 2 Advocate - Patil M.D.
Tabira Aayub Pedekar
Vasim Aayub Pedekar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 2 and Addl Session Judge Mangaon
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Court in Mangaon acquitted all three accused (Lajib Samad Khan, Tabish Ayub Pedekar, and Vasim Ayub Pedekar) of charges under IPC sections 353, 332 r/w 34 and Railway Act sections 146, 160 for allegedly assaulting a railway gateman. The court found critical discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including conflicting statements about the incident location, the vehicle used by assailants, and the body part where injuries occurred, coupled with the absence of proper identification procedures and lack of corroborating witnesses, rendering the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sessions Court in Mangaon acquitted all three accused (Lajib Samad Khan, Tabish Ayub Pedekar, and Vasim Ayub Pedekar) of charges under IPC sections 353, 332 r/w 34 and Railway Act sections 146, 160 for allegedly assaulting a railway gateman. The court found critical discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including conflicting statements about the incident location, the vehicle used by assailants, and the body part where injuries occurred, coupled with the absence of proper identification procedures and lack of corroborating witnesses, rendering the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable 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