State of Maharashtra through PSO Ansing vs Sharad Akash Ingole Advocate - Padghan Dhanraj Ramji — 23/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,78,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th June 2026.
Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act
CNR: MHWS010003462025
Filing Number
197/2025
Filing Date
03-04-2025
Registration No
23/2025
Registration Date
03-04-2025
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
12-District Judge 3 and ASJ, Washim
Decision Date
06th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
26
Police Station
ANSING
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Ansing
Respondent(s)
Sharad Akash Ingole Advocate - Padghan Dhanraj Ramji
Amar Sham Bhagat
Hearing History
Judge: 12-District Judge 3 and ASJ, Washim
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 23/2025 Court Decision: Both accused, Sharad Akash Ingole and Amar Sham Bhagat, were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 74, 78, 3(5) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Sections 8 and 12. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident (06/02/2025) and could not prove the charges of sexual assault and harassment beyond reasonable doubt. The lone victim's testimony, unsupported by corroborating evidence or documentary proof of her age, was insufficient to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 23/2025 Court Decision: Both accused, Sharad Akash Ingole and Amar Sham Bhagat, were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 74, 78, 3(5) and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Sections 8 and 12. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident (06/02/2025) and could not prove the charges of sexual assault and harassment beyond reasonable doubt. The lone victim's testimony, unsupported by corroborating evidence or documentary proof of her age, was insufficient to secure conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts