State of West Bengal vs Pujan Mangar alice Thapa — 164/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,82,351. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 29th May 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBDJ020021712025
Filing Number
2170/2025
Filing Date
07-08-2025
Registration No
164/2025
Registration Date
08-08-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling
Judge
5-CJM
Decision Date
29th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Adv. Pankaj Prasad
Respondent(s)
Pujan Mangar alice Thapa
Hearing History
Judge: 5-CJM
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-05-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C |
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of West Bengal v. Pujan Mangar (Reg. 164/2025) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling acquitted accused Pujan Mangar of charges under sections 85 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), finding insufficient evidence of mental and physical cruelty. The complainant (wife) testified about assault, threats, extramarital affairs, and borrowed money, but crucially admitted during cross-examination that she filed the case "due to monetary dispute," fundamentally undermining her credibility. The three corroborating witnesses provided no direct knowledge of the alleged conduct. The court determined the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, lacking medical evidence, corroborating documents, or trustworthy evidence to support the domestic cruelty allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of West Bengal v. Pujan Mangar (Reg. 164/2025) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling acquitted accused Pujan Mangar of charges under sections 85 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), finding insufficient evidence of mental and physical cruelty. The complainant (wife) testified about assault, threats, extramarital affairs, and borrowed money, but crucially admitted during cross-examination that she filed the case "due to monetary dispute," fundamentally undermining her credibility. The three corroborating witnesses provided no direct knowledge of the alleged conduct. The court determined the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, lacking medical evidence, corroborating documents, or trustworthy evidence to support the domestic cruelty allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts