STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs MADHU PRASAD AHIR — 153/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341/323. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Gr Case

CNR: WBSP050002262026

Filing Number

225/2026

Filing Date

13-Jan-2026

Registration No

153/2026

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

Indian Penal Code Section 341/323

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Adv. GOVT. PP.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MADHU PRASAD AHIR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Alipore acquitted Madhu Prasad Ahir of all charges under IPC sections 341/323/354/506/509 (wrongful restraint, causing hurt, outraging modesty, criminal intimidation, and word insult). The court found that the prosecution failed to provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with only one prosecution witness who claimed to know nothing about the case, the complainant failing to testify, and no corroborating documentary evidence. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof and acquitted the accused accordingly. 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. 22-Jan-2026

    order by courtView PDF

  6. 22-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 13-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 153/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Alipore acquitted Madhu Prasad Ahir of all charges under IPC sections 341/323/354/506/509 (wrongful restraint, causing hurt, outraging modesty, criminal intimidation, and word insult). The court found that the prosecution failed to provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with only one prosecution witness who claimed to know nothing about the case, the complainant failing to testify, and no corroborating documentary evidence. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof and acquitted the accused accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case