State of Maharashtra vs Satyavan Raosaheb Gaikwad and 3 Advocate - Pukale Mahadeo Baban — 41/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 452,323,506,504,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case

CNR: MHSO200001682024

Filing Number

130/2024

Filing Date

30-Jan-2024

Registration No

41/2024

Registration Date

30-Jan-2024

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola

Judge

8-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

86

Police Station

Sangola Police Station.

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 452,323,506,504,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

    Adv. App

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Satyavan Raosaheb Gaikwad and 3 Advocate - Pukale Mahadeo Baban

  2. 2.Sunita Satyavan Gaikwad

  3. 3.Aniket Satyavan Gaikwad

  4. 4.Mayuri Satyavan Gaikwad

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: 41/2024 Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Sangola, Solapur acquitted all three defendants—Satyavan Raosaheb Gaikwad, Sunita Satyavan Gaikwad, and Aniket Satyavan Gaikwad—on March 18, 2026, under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant's home, committed assault, abused, or intimidated the complainant as alleged. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (the complainant) provided inconsistent testimony, couldn't recall crucial details about the alleged incident, and failed to support the charges. Additionally, evidence of an out-of-court settlement between the accused and complainant undermined the prosecution case, rendering the charges unproven beyond suspicion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  7. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  8. 05-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  9. 09-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  11. 15-Oct-2025

    Charge

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  12. 09-Sep-2025

    Charge

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  13. 06-Aug-2025

    Filing of Surety

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  14. 07-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  15. 17-May-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  16. 15-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sangola

  17. 08-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Summons

    Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  18. 27-Sep-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  19. 30-May-2024

    Awaiting Summons

    Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.

  20. 15-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 30-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 41/2024 Court Decision: The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Sangola, Solapur acquitted all three defendants—Satyavan Raosaheb Gaikwad, Sunita Satyavan Gaikwad, and Aniket Satyavan Gaikwad—on March 18, 2026, under IPC sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant's home, committed assault, abused, or intimidated the complainant as alleged. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (the complainant) provided inconsistent testimony, couldn't recall crucial details about the alleged incident, and failed to support the charges. Additionally, evidence of an out-of-court settlement between the accused and complainant undermined the prosecution case, rendering the charges unproven beyond suspicion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case