Court Sentences BJP MLA Nitesh Rane to One Month’s Imprisonment for Humiliating Engineer by Making Him Walk Through Muddy Water in Public [Read Judgment]

Maharashtra: The Additional Sessions Judge at Oros, Sindhudurg, has convicted Nitesh Rane under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally insulting a Sub-Divisional Engineer of the National Highways Authority by compelling him to walk through muddy water in public, sentencing him to one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000. Rane and 28 other accused were acquitted of all remaining charges, including assault on a public servant, rioting, wrongful confinement, and criminal conspiracy, for want of cogent evidence.

Additional Sessions Judge V.S. Deshmukh delivered the judgment on April 27, 2026, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2021, arising from FIR No. 205 of 2019 registered at Kankavali Police Station, Sindhudurg.

The case arose from an incident on July 4, 2019, at a bridge over the Gad River on Mumbai–Goa National Highway No. 66 at Kankavali, Sindhudurg. The informant, Prakash Dadoji Shedekar, who was working as a Sub-Divisional Engineer in the National Highways Sub-Division, Sawantwadi, was directed by Accused No. 1, Nitesh Rane, to remain present at the site for inspection of road-widening work on National Highway No. 66.

When the informant reached the spot, Rane arrived accompanied by his followers. The prosecution alleged that Rane and the other accused, who were said to be members of an unlawful assembly, humiliated the informant by pouring buckets of muddy water on him, slapping him, tying him with a white highway safety strip, forcing him to walk through muddy water, and threatening him while he was discharging his duties as a public servant.

An FIR was lodged on July 4, 2019, and a charge sheet was filed on November 1, 2019. Charges were framed against all 30 accused on March 7, 2022. The proceedings against Accused No. 29, Shamsundar Narayan Dalavi, abated during the trial.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses. The informant, Prakash Shedekar, appeared as PW1; police personnel Bhushan Sutar as PW5; and the examining doctor as PW6. The court noted significant discrepancies between the FIR, the testimony of PW1, and the version of PW5 on several critical aspects of the alleged incident.

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused formed an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC. It observed that PW1’s testimony was silent regarding the presence of several named accused at the spot, and that PW5, though claiming to be present, named only four accused—Rane and Accused Nos. 14, 15, and 17—as being present on the bridge where the incident occurred. The court held that mere presence in a crowd does not automatically make a person a member of an unlawful assembly, and that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence to establish the same.

Since the formation of an unlawful assembly was not proved, the offences of rioting under Section 147, rioting armed with deadly weapons under Section 148, and all offences charged with the aid of Section 149—including assault on a public servant (Section 353), voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant (Section 332), wrongful confinement (Section 342), voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon (Section 324), and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323)—were held not to be made out.

On the charge of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 149, the court found material inconsistencies between the FIR and the testimonies of PW1 and PW5 regarding who poured muddy water on the informant. The court also found the informant’s claim of identifying Accused No. 19, Megha Gangan, as the person who slapped him from behind to be unreliable, given that he admitted to being in a semi-conscious condition and that a mob of 40–50 persons was present.

With respect to criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the court found no evidence of any agreement to commit an illegal act. The charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC was also not established, as neither the FIR nor the witnesses indicated that any death threat had been issued. The charge under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, was likewise rejected for lack of evidence.

However, the court held that the charge under Section 504 IPC was proved against Accused No. 1, Nitesh Rane, in relation to compelling the informant to walk through muddy water. It noted that both in the FIR and in his deposition, PW1 consistently stated that Rane forced him to walk through muddy water in front of the house of Advocate Umesh Sawant, and that this version remained unshaken in cross-examination.

The court held that making a senior officer of the National Highways Authority walk through muddy water in public constituted intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of the peace, thereby attracting Section 504 IPC. It further observed that the exact abusive words are not material; rather, the essence of the offence lies in the act of intentional insult.

On sentencing, the court rejected the plea for imposition of fine alone. It observed that Rane, being an MLA at the relevant time, was expected to uphold the law. Even if his intention was to protest poor-quality highway work, he was not justified in humiliating a public servant. The court emphasized that such conduct, if unchecked, would undermine the dignity of public officials and hinder the discharge of their duties.

Accordingly, the court sentenced Rane to one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with a default sentence of seven days’ simple imprisonment. It directed that ₹50,000 from the fine be paid to the informant as compensation under Section 357(1) CrPC. The court also granted set-off for five days already undergone in custody between July 5 and July 9, 2019.

Case Details

• Case Title: State of Maharashtra through Kankavali Police Station v. Nitesh Narayan Rane & Others
• Case Number: Sessions Case No. 13 of 2021 (arising out of C.R. No. 205/2019)
• Court: Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros
• Presiding Officer: Additional Sessions Judge V.S. Deshmukh
• Date of Judgment: April 27, 2026
• FIR Date: July 4, 2019
• Complainant’s Representative: A.P.P. Shri R.V. Desai for the State
• Accused’s Advocate: Adv. Shri S.D. Desai

[Read Judgment]