Appasaheb alias Appasha Bandichode vs The State Of Maharashtra Through-D.G.P. Solapur — 9/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal

CNR: MHSO010004492025

e-Filing Number

04-02-2025

Filing Number

288/2025

Filing Date

05-Feb-2025

Registration No

9/2025

Registration Date

07-Feb-2025

Court

District and Session Court , Solapur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Appasaheb alias Appasha Bandichode

    Adv. Kulkarni Prakash Anantrao

  2. 2.Mallikarjun alias Kumar Bandichode

  3. 3.Kashibai Appasha Bandichode

  4. 4.Kallappa Yallappa Bandichode

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Maharashtra Through-D.G.P. Solapur

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The Sessions Judge acquitted all four appellants of charges under IPC Sections 325 and 323 (causing grievous and simple hurt), finding material discrepancies in witness testimony, procedural irregularities, and insufficient corroborating medical evidence to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified serious gaps in the prosecution's case, including contradictory eyewitness accounts regarding who arrived at the incident scene, admissions that the FIR was filed after deliberation to "teach a lesson" to the accused, failure to examine independent witnesses despite 20-25 people present, and a doctor's admission that the injuries could have resulted from a motorcycle fall rather than assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 12-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 19-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  12. 11-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  13. 09-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  14. 16-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  15. 21-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  16. 18-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  17. 19-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  18. 21-May-2025

    Paper Book

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  19. 16-Apr-2025

    Paper Book

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  20. 17-Mar-2025

    Paper Book

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  21. 11-Feb-2025

    Paper Book

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 07-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 05-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The Sessions Judge acquitted all four appellants of charges under IPC Sections 325 and 323 (causing grievous and simple hurt), finding material discrepancies in witness testimony, procedural irregularities, and insufficient corroborating medical evidence to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified serious gaps in the prosecution's case, including contradictory eyewitness accounts regarding who arrived at the incident scene, admissions that the FIR was filed after deliberation to "teach a lesson" to the accused, failure to examine independent witnesses despite 20-25 people present, and a doctor's admission that the injuries could have resulted from a motorcycle fall rather than assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case