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.

Case disposed

Spl.Case Child Prot. - Spl.Case under POCSO Act

CNR: MHWS010003462025

Filing Number

197/2025

Filing Date

03-Apr-2025

Registration No

23/2025

Registration Date

03-Apr-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

12-District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

Decision Date

06-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

26

Police Station

ANSING

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,78,3(5)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 8,12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra through PSO Ansing

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sharad Akash Ingole Advocate - Padghan Dhanraj Ramji

  2. 2.Amar Sham Bhagat

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 06-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  10. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence Part Heard

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  11. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  12. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  13. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  14. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  15. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  16. 06-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  17. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  18. 25-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  19. 19-Jun-2025

    Charge

    Ad-hoc Dj-2 and Asj, Washim

  20. 05-May-2025

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  21. 05-May-2025

    Charge

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  22. 02-May-2025

    Order on Exh

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  23. 29-Apr-2025

    Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  24. 28-Apr-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  25. 25-Apr-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  26. 17-Apr-2025

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Ad-hoc Dj-1 Asj Washim

  27. 04-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 03-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 23/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case