State of Maharashtra through PSO Shirpur vs Maroti Pandharinath Vaidya — 75/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376,(2)(N). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th April 2026.

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

CNR: MHWS010016702023

Case disposed

Filing Number

670/2023

Filing Date

01-12-2023

Registration No

75/2023

Registration Date

01-12-2023

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

350

Police Station

SHIRPUR

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 376,(2)(N)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Section 4,5,6
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT Section 9,11

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra through PSO Shirpur

Adv. App

Respondent(s)

Maroti Pandharinath Vaidya

Pandharinath Gyanoba Vaidya

Sau. Antakala Gajanan Bhutekar

Hearing History

Judge: 3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim

09-04-2026

Disposed

07-04-2026

Judgment

04-04-2026

Judgment

16-03-2026

Arguments

11-03-2026

Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Maroti Pandharinath Vaidya (75/2023) The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC Section 376(2)(n) and Sections 3-4, 5-6, 9-10, and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense, with conflicting evidence regarding her birth date making guilt unproven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Maroti Pandharinath Vaidya (75/2023) The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC Section 376(2)(n) and Sections 3-4, 5-6, 9-10, and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense, with conflicting evidence regarding her birth date making guilt unproven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Washim All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case