State vs Dipak Advocate - Sant Kumar Pathak — 268/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 377. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPSR010012212022
Filing Number
1068/2022
Filing Date
10-08-2022
Registration No
268/2022
Registration Date
10-08-2022
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
224
Police Station
Malhipur
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. ADGC
Respondent(s)
Dipak Advocate - Sant Kumar Pathak
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Exclusive POCSO Act)
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Shravasti District Sessions Court acquitted defendant Deepak (son of Ramraj) of charges under IPC Section 377 (unnatural offences) and POCSO Act Sections 5(m)/6(m), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified significant contradictions in witness statements, gaps in medical evidence, delays in FIR registration, and noted the victim's account conflicted with corroborating witnesses, ultimately concluding the allegations could not be established with the required certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Shravasti District Sessions Court acquitted defendant Deepak (son of Ramraj) of charges under IPC Section 377 (unnatural offences) and POCSO Act Sections 5(m)/6(m), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified significant contradictions in witness statements, gaps in medical evidence, delays in FIR registration, and noted the victim's account conflicted with corroborating witnesses, ultimately concluding the allegations could not be established with the required certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts