State of West Bengal vs Firoj — 11/2025
Case under Special Criminal Courts (jurisdiction) Act Section 8 of Pocso. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th April 2026.
POCSO - Special Court Cases
CNR: WBUD050001932025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
114/2025
Filing Date
06-02-2025
Registration No
11/2025
Registration Date
06-02-2025
Court
Additional District Judge, Islampore
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
Dalkhola
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Respondent(s)
Firoj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Judgement
Argument / Further Argument
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 22-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 21-04-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 17-04-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C | |
| 10-03-2026 | Examination under section 313 Cr.P.C |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of the POCSO Special Court, Islampur (West Bengal) acquitted all three accused—Firoz, Salauddin, and Ajahar Ali—of sexual assault charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case by preponderance of probability, citing significant contradictions between the victim's written complaint and her substantive testimony, inadequate corroboration by independent witnesses, and hearsay evidence. The judge emphasized that while Section 29 of POCSO Act imposes a reverse burden on the accused, the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case through reliable evidence before this burden shifts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of the POCSO Special Court, Islampur (West Bengal) acquitted all three accused—Firoz, Salauddin, and Ajahar Ali—of sexual assault charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case by preponderance of probability, citing significant contradictions between the victim's written complaint and her substantive testimony, inadequate corroboration by independent witnesses, and hearsay evidence. The judge emphasized that while Section 29 of POCSO Act imposes a reverse burden on the accused, the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case through reliable evidence before this burden shifts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts