State Government vs SABUJ SAMANTA — 32/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,365,366,368. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 22nd April 2026.
Sessions Case - Session Case
CNR: WBEM010004862023
Filing Number
314/2023
Filing Date
31-Jan-2023
Registration No
32/2023
Registration Date
31-Jan-2023
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Tamluk
Judge
4-ADJ Ftc I
Decision Date
22-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
397
Police Station
PURBA MEDINIPUR TAMLUK
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government
Adv. LD APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SABUJ SAMANTA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
22-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
22-Apr-2026
Copy of judgementView PDF
Summary: State v. Sabuj Samanta (Case 32/2023) All four accused persons—Sabuj Samanta, Uttam Samanta, Nilima Nayek Samanta, and Sukdeb Nayek—were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 363/365/366/368/34 (kidnapping, abduction, and procuring minors). The court found the prosecution's evidence riddled with contradictions: the victim made conflicting statements about whether she was taken to the accused's house or her own uncle's house, key witnesses recanted or gave hearsay testimony, and the alleged incident location yielded no corroborating witnesses. The court held that suspicion cannot substitute for proof and that the prosecution failed to establish prior inducement or active participation beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Apr-2026
Disposed
ADJ Ftc I
-
16-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Judgement
ADJ Ftc I
-
07-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
07-Apr-2026
D/W
ADJ Ftc I
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
ADJ Ftc I
-
05-Jan-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
05-Jan-2026
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
29-Nov-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
29-Nov-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
28-Nov-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
28-Nov-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
25-Sep-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
25-Sep-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
20-Jun-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
20-Jun-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
03-Apr-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
03-Apr-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
12-Mar-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
12-Mar-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
11-Mar-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
11-Mar-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
10-Mar-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
10-Mar-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
01-Mar-2025
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
01-Mar-2025
Further Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
20-Dec-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
20-Dec-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
20-Sep-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
20-Sep-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
09-Sep-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
09-Sep-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
15-May-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
15-May-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
18-Apr-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
18-Apr-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
17-Apr-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
19-Jan-2024
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
19-Jan-2024
Evidence
ADJ Ftc I
-
12-Sep-2023
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
12-Sep-2023
Evidence
ADJ Ftc II
-
11-Sep-2023
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
11-Sep-2023
Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge Ftc I
-
12-Jun-2023
Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge Ftc I
-
19-Apr-2023
Apperance
Addl District and Sessions Judge Ftc I
-
23-Feb-2023
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
23-Feb-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
31-Jan-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 32/2023
Summary: State v. Sabuj Samanta (Case 32/2023) All four accused persons—Sabuj Samanta, Uttam Samanta, Nilima Nayek Samanta, and Sukdeb Nayek—were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 363/365/366/368/34 (kidnapping, abduction, and procuring minors). The court found the prosecution's evidence riddled with contradictions: the victim made conflicting statements about whether she was taken to the accused's house or her own uncle's house, key witnesses recanted or gave hearsay testimony, and the alleged incident location yielded no corroborating witnesses. The court held that suspicion cannot substitute for proof and that the prosecution failed to establish prior inducement or active participation beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts