CW-2026-0049Hooghly, West BengalJudgment 22 May 2026

Serampore Man v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Professor a Serampore man was convicted by the Serampore trial court in July 2024 in Women PS Case No. 12 of 2022 and spent over four years in custody. The Calcutta High Court held the investigation by S.[name withheld] was perfunctory and biased: a vaginal swab was never sent for forensic examination, neutral residents were ignored, and key witnesses were omitted from the chargesheet. The Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and held his prolonged deprivation of liberty was directly precipitated by the IO's gross incompetence. It ordered Rs. 10 lakh compensation within three months, recoverable from the delinquent officials, and directed the DGP to consider disciplinary proceedings against the IO. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 22 May 2026 in CRA (DB) No. 25 of 2025, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Arijit Banerjee, Apurba Sinha Ray, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Sub-Inspector, Serampore Women Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).

Register number
WB 15 CW 0004
Case reference
CRA (DB) No. 25 of 2025 / 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB
Court and date
Calcutta High Court (Coram: Arijit Banerjee, Apurba Sinha Ray, JJ.), 22 May 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector, Serampore Women Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to take even rudimentary steps to verify the allegations against Professor a Serampore man” (at para 60)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 22 May 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to take even rudimentary steps to verify the allegations against Professor a Serampore man” (para 60)

Institutional response

1
22 May 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Calcutta High Court External · Binding

The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.