SADASHIV RAMRAO HADBE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA . — Crl.A. No. 544/2005

Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010042382005

Filing Date

22-Feb-2005

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 544/2005

Diary Number

4238/2005

Order Date

17-Jan-2006

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SADASHIV RAMRAO HADBE

    Adv. ANIL KUMAR TANDALE (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .

    Adv. RAVINDRA KESHAVRAO ADSURE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jan-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Jan-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 27-Oct-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 11-Jul-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 10-May-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 08-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 04-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 28-Feb-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 24-Feb-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 22-Feb-2005

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 544/2005

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Crl.A. No. 544/2005 - Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Division). The appellant, a medical practitioner charged with rape, was directed to be released from jail immediately. Key Reasoning: The Court found serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Medical evidence contradicted the alleged sexual assault: vaginal swabs showed no spermatozoa despite collection on the same day, and the appellant's medical examination showed presence of smegma indicating no recent sexual intercourse. The Court also noted the prosecution's version was highly improbable—multiple patients were present nearby, the prosecutrix showed no injuries, and her FI statement lacked details she later "improved" in court testimony. The semen stains on clothing were insufficient to prove intercourse. Direction: The appellant was to be released forthwith unless required in another case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case