STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs RAJEN MD RAJEN AND ANOTHER — 3857/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324/114. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th May 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBSP050102852025
Filing Number
10240/2025
Filing Date
12-Dec-2025
Registration No
3857/2025
Registration Date
12-Dec-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, South 24 Parganas
Judge
4-CJM
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 13-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Adv. GOVT. PP.
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAJEN MD RAJEN AND ANOTHER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
JudgementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Rajen @ Md. Rajen and Nilu @ Yeasmin Parveen) of charges under Section 324/114 IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant with a hockey stick. The court found critical contradictions in prosecution witness testimony—the complainant stated she was assaulted in her written complaint but testified her daughter was assaulted during trial. Key evidence gaps (missing IO, doctor, medical documents, and independent witnesses) and the victim's testimony that she "knows nothing" about the incident fatally undermined the prosecution's case. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Disposed
CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence
CJM
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
CJM
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence
CJM
-
22-Jan-2026
order by courtView PDF
-
22-Jan-2026
Evidence
CJM
-
21-Jan-2026
Appearance
CJM
-
22-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3857/2025
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Rajen @ Md. Rajen and Nilu @ Yeasmin Parveen) of charges under Section 324/114 IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant with a hockey stick. The court found critical contradictions in prosecution witness testimony—the complainant stated she was assaulted in her written complaint but testified her daughter was assaulted during trial. Key evidence gaps (missing IO, doctor, medical documents, and independent witnesses) and the victim's testimony that she "knows nothing" about the incident fatally undermined the prosecution's case. The court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts