State of West Bengal vs SK. Ajib and others — 172/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379/411ofI.P.C.. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th April 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBPU060005452016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
603/2016
Filing Date
06-09-2016
Registration No
172/2016
Registration Date
06-09-2016
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia
Judge
4-JM I
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Respondent(s)
SK. Ajib and others
Hearing History
Judge: 4-JM I
Disposed
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
E.R of WPA
E.R of WPA
E.R of WPA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C | |
| 16-02-2026 | E.R of WPA | |
| 29-12-2025 | E.R of WPA | |
| 06-11-2025 | E.R of WPA |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Sk. Ajib of theft (Section 379 IPC) and receiving stolen property (Section 411 IPC) charges in a case involving missing mobile phones. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant (PW1) explicitly stated he did not know who committed the theft or recognize the accused, and the other two witnesses provided only hearsay evidence with no incriminating facts. No stolen property was recovered from the accused, and the court emphasized that suspicion without cogent evidence cannot sustain conviction, entitling the accused to acquittal under the benefit of doubt doctrine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted accused Sk. Ajib of theft (Section 379 IPC) and receiving stolen property (Section 411 IPC) charges in a case involving missing mobile phones. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant (PW1) explicitly stated he did not know who committed the theft or recognize the accused, and the other two witnesses provided only hearsay evidence with no incriminating facts. No stolen property was recovered from the accused, and the court emphasized that suspicion without cogent evidence cannot sustain conviction, entitling the accused to acquittal under the benefit of doubt doctrine. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts