The High Court held that a revision against an order rejecting evidence in a rape case became infructuous as the trial concluded and three accused were acquitted, disposing of the matter accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
07.08.2023
Sl. No.: 18
Court No.30 BM
CRR 865 of 2019 +
IA No.: CRAN 1/2019 (Old No.: CRAN/1786/2019)
The State of West Bengal vs.
Samim Mondal & Ors.
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta
… for the State/petitioner The present revision had been preferred by the State against
an order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Uluberia, Howrah in connection S.T No.132(u) 2016 (New S.T No.: 206/2016), corresponding to G.R. Case No.1268 of 2016, arising out of Uluberia Women Police Station Case No.33/16 dated 13.06.2016 under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, thereby rejecting the application filed by the prosecution inter alia praying therein for exhibiting photographs under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Learned counsel for the State now files a report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Uluberia Police Station from where it appears that the trial in the present session case has already concluded and three accused persons have been found not guilty and acquitted of all charges. Accordingly, the present revision has now become infructuous. The report filed be made part of the record.
The revisional application is thus, disposed of as infructuous.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )
The State of West Bengal
Samim Mondal
Shampa Dutt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
