STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs NAIMED HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER — 141/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(2)126(2). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Gr Case

CNR: WBSP050002122026

Filing Number

211/2026

Filing Date

13-Jan-2026

Registration No

141/2026

Registration Date

13-Jan-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, South 24 Parganas

Judge

4-CJM

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 13-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(2)126(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Adv. GOVT. PP.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NAIMED HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Naimed Hussain and Md. Imran Azam Alvi) of charges under Sections 126(2)/118(1)/352/54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case with cogent evidence—the sole witness could not recall details of the alleged assault at a KFC restaurant, no corroborating evidence (medical reports, investigator testimony, or independent witnesses) was produced, and significant variances existed between the written complaint and testimony. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof and the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CJM

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    CJM

  5. 28-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 13-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 141/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Naimed Hussain and Md. Imran Azam Alvi) of charges under Sections 126(2)/118(1)/352/54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case with cogent evidence—the sole witness could not recall details of the alleged assault at a KFC restaurant, no corroborating evidence (medical reports, investigator testimony, or independent witnesses) was produced, and significant variances existed between the written complaint and testimony. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof and the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case