State of Maharashtra vs Aashikarya Urfha Ashok Chhapuru Kale etc 3 Advocate - Kale Babita Lakhan — 65/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 454,457,380,34. Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED AND SENTENCED on 30th March 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSO180003902025
Filing Number
322/2025
Filing Date
03-03-2025
Registration No
65/2025
Registration Date
04-03-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Mangalwedha
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mangalwedha
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CONVICTED AND SENTENCED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
Aashikarya Urfha Ashok Chhapuru Kale etc 3 Advocate - Kale Babita Lakhan
Mahesh Basavraj Bhosale
Shakil Dujrya Kale
Shamya Safhalya Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Mangalwedha
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ashikarya Kale (R.C.C. 65/2025) The Judicial Magistrate convicted Ashikarya Kale of house breaking (IPC §454) and theft in a dwelling house (IPC §380), sentencing him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,000 fine for each offense (running concurrently). The accused was acquitted of nighttime house-breaking (§457) due to insufficient evidence of the specific time element. The court relied on circumstantial evidence including the victims' testimony of forced entry and missing gold ornaments, recovery of stolen property at the accused's instance, and the accused's failure to provide explanation for possession of the stolen goods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Ashikarya Kale (R.C.C. 65/2025) The Judicial Magistrate convicted Ashikarya Kale of house breaking (IPC §454) and theft in a dwelling house (IPC §380), sentencing him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,000 fine for each offense (running concurrently). The accused was acquitted of nighttime house-breaking (§457) due to insufficient evidence of the specific time element. The court relied on circumstantial evidence including the victims' testimony of forced entry and missing gold ornaments, recovery of stolen property at the accused's instance, and the accused's failure to provide explanation for possession of the stolen goods. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts