The Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, convicted Nitesh Narayan Rane under Section 504 IPC, sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment and imposed ₹1 lakh fine, while acquitting him and the other accused of the remaining charges.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros has convicted Nitesh Narayan Rane under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Additional Sessions Judge V.S. Deshmukh sentenced Rane to simple imprisonment for one month. The Court also imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000.
The judgment was delivered on April 27, 2026, in State of Maharashtra through Kankavali Police Station v. Nitesh Narayan Rane & Ors., Sessions Case No.13 of 2021.
The case arose from C.R. No.205/2019 registered at Kankavali Police Station.
The police booked the accused under Sections 353, 332, 342, 324, 147, 143, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 109 and 120B IPC.
They also invoked Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The FIR was registered on July 4, 2019. Thereafter, the police filed the charge-sheet on November 1, 2019. The Court framed charges on March 7, 2022.
According to the prosecution, Prakash Dadoji Shedekar was working as Sub Divisional Engineer, National Highway, Sub Division, Sawantwadi.
The prosecution alleged that Nitesh Rane directed him to remain present at the bridge of Gad river at Kankavali on July 4, 2019.
It further alleged that Rane was unhappy with the widening work of National Highway No.66.
Accordingly, the prosecution claimed that Rane humiliated Shedekar and made him walk through muddy water while he was on official duty.
The Court recorded that it framed charges for unlawful assembly, rioting, assault, wrongful confinement, hurt, intimidation, abetment and conspiracy.
It also framed charges under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The Court also recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove unlawful assembly.
It noted that a large gathering was present at the spot. However, the evidence did not show that five or more accused persons formed an unlawful assembly.
The Court further observed that a person does not become a member of an unlawful assembly merely because he is present in a mob.
Since unlawful assembly was not proved, the Court held that the charges of rioting under Sections 147 and 148 IPC could not stand.
The Court also held that the prosecution failed to prove several other charges.
These included wrongful confinement, damage to public property, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, abetment, assault or use of criminal force, and voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant.
While dealing with Section 504 IPC, the Court noted that the presence of both Prakash Shedekar and Nitesh Rane at the spot was not disputed.
It also noted that Shedekar was Sub Divisional Engineer in the National Highway Sub Division, Sawantwadi.
Further, the Court found that the widening work of National Highway No.66 fell within Shedekar’s jurisdiction.
Although the prosecution could not prove the alleged verbal humiliation, Shedekar consistently stated that Rane made him walk through muddy water.
The Court noted that he made the same allegation in the FIR and during evidence.
The Court observed that Section 504 IPC deals with intentional insult.
It further held that the manner of insult is not material.
The Court found that making a public servant holding a high post walk through muddy water in public would humiliate and insult him.
Therefore, the Court held that Rane committed the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC.
At the sentencing stage, Rane’s counsel sought leniency.
Counsel submitted that Rane had no previous conviction and was not a habitual offender.
He also argued that the incident arose from frustration over poor highway work and inconvenience faced by the public.
However, the APP opposed leniency. The APP submitted that Rane had committed the offence against a public servant in a public place.
The Court noted that public complaints existed over the quality of highway work.
It accepted that the issue acted as the “triggering point”.
However, the Court said Rane was an MLA at the relevant time. It observed that “Law Makers are not supposed to take law into their hands.”
The Court further said that Rane could raise his voice against poor quality work. However, he could not humiliate or insult a public servant in public.
The Court called the act an “abuse of power”. Therefore, it denied him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The Court convicted Nitesh Narayan Rane under Section 504 IPC vide Section 235(2) CrPC.
It sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month.
The Court also imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000. In default of payment, Rane will undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
Further, the Court directed that ₹50,000 from the fine amount shall be paid to informant Prakash Shedekar as compensation.
The Court acquitted the remaining accused of all charges.
They faced charges under Sections 353, 332, 342, 324, 147, 143, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 109 and 120B IPC.
They also faced prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The Court acquitted them under Section 235(1) CrPC and recorded that their bail bonds stood cancelled.
