Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
MHMM180000072022 Received on : 01/01/2022
Registered on : 01/01/2022
Decided on : 11/08/2022
Duration : 00 Y. 07 M. 10 D.
Exh.No.- 38
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
09TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by K.H. Thombre)
JUDGMENT
(As per Section 355 of Code of Criminal Procedure)
a) The Serial number of the case : C.C. No.03/PW/2022
b) The date of commission of
offence
: 31/10/2021
c) The name of the complainant if
any
: The State through Mahim police
station. C.R.No.535/2021.
d) The name of the accused persons,
parentage and residence
: Mahesh Sitappa Koli @ Mahya
Age – 28 years,
Occupation- Nil
R/o. Mahim New Police Colony, in
front of Building No.19, Prakash
Nagar Slum area, Mahim (W) ,
Mumbai- 16
e) The offence complained of or
proved
: Under Section 392 of Indian Penal
Code.
f) The plea of the accused and his
examination, if any
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
g) The Final Order : The accused is convicted for the
offence punishable under Section
392 of Indian Penal Code .
h) The date of such order : 11/08/2022
..2/-
-- 1 of 16 --
Judgment 2 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
=====================================================
Learned counsel for Prosecution: APP Smt.MF Pakajade for State
Ld. Counsel for Accused : Adv. Mr. P.P.Khot
=====================================================
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 11/08/2022)
1) The above named accused is charged for the offence punishable
under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) The case of prosecution in brief as under----
On 31.10.2021, around 07:30 a.m. informant Smt. Sampada Deepak
Ukirde went to Gold Palm Housing Society, Second Floor, Dilip Gupte Road,
Mahim(W), Mumbai- 16 to do housework. After finishing the work informant
was going by walking for work at Sangar Nilakanth Apte, 3rd Floor of Saraswati
Niwas, Shivaji Park Dadar. At around 09.15 a.m. when informant was in front
of the gate of World Camp Building, Dilip Gupte Road, Southern Lane,
Mahim(W) Mumbai-16, she was scared when an unknown person suddenly
appeared in front of her. The unknown person tried to pull Mangalsutra from the
neck of informant. This act was resisted by the informant. The unknown person
pushed the informant down, a small part of her Mangalsutra fell into her hands
and part of the Mangalsutra taken away by the unknown person. Then that
unknown person ran towards Keni Wadi. At that moment, informant got up and
started running after him. Other people started running after him along with her.
Shortly after, two persons who had gone ahead of informant came to her and told
her that the person carrying the Mangalsutra had shown them a knife and they
came back scared. After that she called on 100 number and informed the police
about the incident. The informant lodged report against unknown person at
Police Station, Mahim.
3) On the report of the informant offence was registered vide crime
..3/-
-- 2 of 16 --
Judgment 3 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
No.535/2021 punishable under sections 392 of Indian Penal Code against
accused. During investigation accused was arrested and on the basis of evidence
collected charge-sheet is filed against the accused.
4) Charge is framed against the accused at Exh.02. The contents of
the charge were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular in Jail
Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence
of the accused is of total denial. Plea of the accused was recorded at Exh.03 .
5) The prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses P.W.No.1
Sampada Deepak Ukirde, informant ( Exh.04), P.W.No.2 Chand Zakir Shaikh,
panch witness (Exh.06), P.W.No.3 Ankush Baban Gore, who chased the
accused(Exh.08), P.W.No.04 Mariya John Moninadar, who informed
whereabouts of the accused(Exh.09), P.W.No.05 Shakil Abdul Mullha, Nayab
Tahasildar who conducted test identification parade (Exh.10), P.W.No.06 Atul
Shantaram Avhad, Investigation Officer(Exh.16) and P.W.No.07 Vikas Digambar
Sasane, who collected CCTV Footage (Exh.26). Statement of accused under
Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded (Exh.36). The
defence of accused is of false implication in this case.
6) Considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, following
points arose for determination. Findings are recorded for reasons to follow.
Sr.No POINTS FINDINGS
1] Whether the prosecution proved that the
accused on 31/10/2021 at 09.15 hrs. in front
of the gate of World Cample Building, Dilip
Gupte Road, South lane, Mahim(W), Mumbai
committed theft of gold Mangalsutra
weighing 08 gms. worth Rs.30,000/- of the
informant Smt. Sampada Deepak Ukirde by
snatching the same from her neck and in
committing theft attempted to cause hurt or
wrongful restrain to the informant and
In the affirmative.
..4/-
-- 3 of 16 --
Judgment 4 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code?
2] What order? Accused is convicted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 AND 2:
7. The happening of the incidence has been narrated by (P.W.1)
Sampada Ukirde that after completing her work at Gold Palm Society, Mahim
she left for another work at Shivaji Park. When she reached at the gate of World
Cample building accused came from front side, put his hand on her neck,
snatched her Mangalsutra, she tried to protect the mangalsutra, there was scuffle
in between her and accused, half portion of mangalsutra fall in the hands of
accused and half portion remained with her. Accused fall her down, she shouted,
accused started running, some people ran to chase the accused. The persons who
were chasing the accused came back as accused shown knife to those people.
(P.W.1) Sampada Ukirde admitted the contents of the FIR (Exh.05). In cross-
examination P.W.1 Sampada Ukirde denied the suggestion that her Mangalsutra
was not stolen by the accused. As per evidence of (P.W.1) Sampada Ukirde it is
proved that an unidentified person snatched her Mangalsutra by scuffling with
her and was chased by the people when she shouted. From the First Information
report(Exh.05) it is proved that FIR is lodged immediately against the unknown
person about the incidence on 31/10/2021 at about 9.15 a.m.. The reason is that
there is no material in the cross-examination or in the evidence to discard the
testimony of the (P.W.1) Sampada Ukirde about theft of her Mangalsutra and
lodging of the FIR by her.
8. At the time of incidence when informant shouted (P.W.3) Ankush
Gore was one of the person who chased the accused. According to (P.W.3)
Ankush Gore he saw one woman was shouting loudly at Dilip Gupte Road and
one thief was running, people were running behind the thief, he also joined in
..5/-
-- 4 of 16 --
Judgment 5 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
chase of the thief, that thief shown knife to them by giving threat to kill if,
chased. Thereafter (P.W.3) Ankush Gore dialed 100 number and given mobile
phone to the woman. In cross-examination (P.W.3) Ankush Gore deposed that
the incidence of theft was not witnessed by him, 10 to 15 people were gathered
to catch the accused, he did not ask name to the woman. The suggestion that he
was not threatened by the accused is denied by him. On the basis of the cross-
examination of this witness his evidence cannot be discarded for the reason that
there is no material on record to disbelieve that he being the witness who chased
the thief and returned back when threat was given to him. No reason is putforth
by the accused as to why he is deposing against the accused.
9. On the basis of FIR search of the accused was started by the
Investigation Officer (P.W.6) PSI Atul Avhad. According to (P.W.6) Atul
Avhad, he checked CCTV Footage from nearby buildings. On checking CCTV
Footage installed at World Cample Building he found one person on the staircase
as a suspect. On taking photograph of the suspect in his mobile phone he went to
the Prakash Nagar in search of the suspect, made inquiry with one Mariya John
by showing photograph of the suspect to her. The Mariya John identified the
person by disclosing his name as Mahesh Sittappa Koli and informed that she
saw him at Irfan Kirana Store at Prakash Nagar. On this information (P.W.6)
Atul Avhad reached at Irfan Kirana Store, accused started running by seeing him
and his Squad. On giving signal by (P.W.6) Atul Avhad to stop, accused taken
out one knife and threatened him to kill if, followed, he tried to catch the
accused, accused pushed him, his staff present there caught hold the accused.
10. It is further deposed by (P.W.6) Atul Avhad that he called two
panchas, P.I.Dahatonde, SHO Meshram and during personal search of the
accused one knife and a piece of broken Mangalsutra was found. In cross-
examination (P.W.6) Atul Avhad deposed that he do not know the place of
panchas when they were called and denied the suggestion that nothing was
..6/-
-- 5 of 16 --
Judgment 6 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
recovered from the possession of the accused. The seized Mangalsutra was
shown to (P.W.6) Atul Avhad in Court which he identified the same and marked
as Article-A. On scrutiny of the evidence of (P.W.6) Atul Avhad no material is
brought on record to disbelieve his version or to believe that he is not giving
true account of the incidence.
11. According to Pancha Witness,(P.W.2) Chand Zakir he was called at
Police Station on 07/11/2021, accused Mahesh Koli, one woman and PSI Avhad
were present, panchanama(Exh.07) was prepared in his presence and he
identified the Mangalsutra in Court when shown to him. In cross-examination
this witness denied the suggestion that same type of Mangalsutra is easily
available in the market and admitted the suggestion that being driver was
acquainted with the police and signed on the panchanama. The suggestion is
denied by this witness that panchanama was prepared earlier and he merely
signed on the panchanama. It is clear from the evidence of (P.W.2) Chand Zakir
that panchanama (Exh.07) was prepared in his presence. The panchanama
(Exh.07) is in respect of valuation of the seized golden Mangalsutra by expert
from Jeweller's shop.
12. The CCTV Footage relied on by the prosecution is the first link
discovered during the investigation which connect the accused as to his identity
and presence at the nearby area when the incidence took place. To prove CCTV
Footage Police Constable Vikas Sasane (P.W.7) deposed that being member of
Investigation Team he recorded from the screen of CCTV Cameras into his
mobile in which accused was seen entering into the World Cample Building from
staircase. According to (P.W.7) Vikas Sasane he copied the Data from his mobile
in a pendrive. The pendrive which is produced was connected to the computer of
the Court during the evidence and the files were played. Four printouts are taken
from the computer of the Court, by taking screen-shot marked as Exh.32 to 35.
Prosecution filed on record Certificate Under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence
..7/-
-- 6 of 16 --
Judgment 7 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
Act, signed by (P.W.7) Vikas Sasane. There is nothing on record to establish
that (P.W.7) Vikas Sasane has not taken any footage in his mobile and signed
certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
13. Ld. A.P.P. argued that CCTV Footage produced proves presence of
accused at nearby area immediately after the happening of the incidence. The
argument advanced on behalf of the accused is that CCTV Footage is
inadmissible as CCTV Footage is not visible and not produced properly.
Evidence produced through CCTV Footage is kind of electronic evidence. If the
electronic devise itself is produced, it becomes primary evidence. The copying
of the data from hard disc to other device like CD, pendrive etc. it becomes
secondary evidence. To lead this kind of evidence certificate under Section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act is mandatory. This is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K.Bashir( 2014) 10 SCC 437. Section 65B(4) prescribes
as to who should issue certificate under Section 65B. This issue is dealt by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arujun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailas Krishnarao
Gorantiyal ( 2020) 7 SCC. In Para 58 the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted
Section B(4), the person competent to issue certificate which reads as under----
“ It may also be seen that the person who gives this certificate
can be any one out of several persons who occupy a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device, as also the person who may otherwise be in
the management of relevant activities' spoken of in Sub-
section (4) of Section 65B. Considering such certificate may
also be given long after the electronic record has actually
been produced by the computer, section 65(B)(4) makes it
clear that it is sufficient that such person gives the requisite
certificate to the “best of his knowledge and
belief”( obviously, the word 'and' between knowledge and
belief in section 65B(4) must be read as “or” as a person
..8/-
-- 7 of 16 --
Judgment 8 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
cannot testify to the best of his knowledge and belief ”.
14. It is clear from the above ruling that the certificate under section
65B(4) is to be given by the person who occupy a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device, as also the person who may
otherwise be in the management of relevant activities'. The certificate in the
present case is given by (P.W.7) Vikas Sasane who is not the person who occupy
responsible position or management of the activities of CCTV Footage at the
building. The prosecution could have examined the authorized person from
World Cample Building handling the activities and management of CCTV
Footage. The person authorized to manage CCTV Footage is from the World
Cample Building. Failure to examine any such person or filing certificate by
authorized person under Section 65B(4) of the Act makes CCTV Footage relied
on by the prosecution as improperly produced and becomes inadmissible.
15. In the present case CCTV Footage has been copied from the screen
attached to the hard disc of CCTV Unit by recording in a mobile phone. In
Kishan Tripathi Vs. The State MANU-06-0434-206, it is observed that CCTV
Footage is captured by the cameras and can be stored in the computer where files
are created with serial numbers, date, time and identification marks. These
identification marks/details are self generated and recorded, as a result of per-
existing software commands. The capture of images on hard disc is automatic in
the sense that the video images get stored and recorded suemoto when the CCTV
camera is on and is properly connected with the hard disc installed in the
computer.
16. The above ruling is helpful in understanding that the immediate
images captured through CCTV Cameras are stored in a hard disc. The Hard
Disc (DVR) is the primary evidence in which the Data is stored. The equipments
CCTV Cameras and screen are used to capture images and display the dates. To
..9/-
-- 8 of 16 --
Judgment 9 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
produce secondary evidence it should be copied from the primary evidence. In
present case there is a video recording in the mobile phone from the screen
attached to the hard disc to display data cannot be said that it is copied from the
primary evidence i.e. hard disc. For these reasons on both counts, firstly, for
identification of the accused through CCTV Footage and secondly, about
presence of the accused immediately during the period of the incidence at nearby
place is not proved as prosecution failed to file on record certificate under
Section 65 B(4) by the competent person and failure to copy the data from Hard
Disc of CCTV Footage to the pendrive.
17. To establish identity of the accused prosecution has examined
(P.W.5) Shakil Mullha. As per his version he was working as Nayab Tahasildar
at Mumbai City, on the basis of letter issued by Sr. Inspector of Mahim Police
Staton he conducted test identification parade at Aurthur Road Prison on
27/12/2021. During identification parade he was accompanied by two panch
witnesses and informant. The identification parade was conducted in a hall by
taking care that accused is not visible to the informant. Six dummy persons were
called and were asked to stand in a queue. The accused was called and asked to
stand in between six persons as per his wish. Accused choose to stand in
between second and third dummy person from left to right queue. Then
informant was called and asked to identify. Informant stood in front of the
accused and identified by touching her index finger to the accused. The person
identified was Mahesh Sitappa Koli.
18. After this procedure (P.W.05) Shakil Mullha prepared panchanama
(Exh.12) in presence of panchas. Then he prepared Part-I (Exh.13) and Part-
II(Exh.14) of Identification Parade. The report of Test Identification
Parade(Exh.15) was forwarded to the Police Station, Mahim. In cross-
examination (P.W.05) Shakil Mullha answered that he cannot say which clothes
were wear by the dummy person but the dummy person was of same age. The
..10/-
-- 9 of 16 --
Judgment 10 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
suggestion that no such identification parade was conducted by him has been
denied by (P.W.07) Shakil Mullha. It is proved from the evidence of (P.W.05)
Shakil Mullha that he has conducted Test Identification Parade without leaving
any lacuna. The panchanama and memorandum prepared by him clearly
mentions about the conduct of Test Identification Parade. For these reasons it is
held that in Test Identification Parade conducted by (P.W.05) Shakil Mullha
informant has identified the accused as the person who taken away piece of
golden Mangalsutra from the neck of informant by snatching it.
19. Test Identification Parade is useful for the investigation purpose.
The kind of evidence to test identification parade is corroborative in nature. The
purpose and nature of evidence of test identification parade is held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harnath Singh Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1970 SC
1619, that Test Identification parade solves two purposes 1) to satisfy
Investigation Authorities that certain person not previously known to the witness
was involved in the offence and 2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the
testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. In
corroboration to the Test Identification Parade (P.W.01) Sampada Ukirde
identified the accused in Court when produced on Video Conference as the same
person who snatched Mangalsutra from her neck and ran away. Another witness
(P.W.03) Ankush Gore who chased the accused has also identified the accused as
the same person when shown to him on Video Conference. It is categorically
proved by the prosecution that the accused is the person who snatched the golden
Mangalsutra from the neck of informant and ran away by showing knife and
threatening the witnesses.
20. About seizure of the golden Mangalsutra from the accused it is
specifically deposed by (P.W.06) Atul Avhad that after arrest of the accused on
taking personal search he found one knife and piece of broken Mangalsutra. In
support (P.W.04) Mariya John deposed that police officers caught hold the
..11/-
-- 10 of 16 --
Judgment 11 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
accused by tightening him in hands and found one knife and a piece of
mangalsutra from his waist. The piece of mangalsutra is with the police has been
deposed by the P.W.01 Sampada Ukirde. In view of this evidence on record the
argument that seizure panchanama of golden mangalsutra from the accused is not
proved cannot be endorsed. The another reason for discarding the argument that
nothing was seized from the accused is that there is a direct trustworthy evidence
of (P.W.01) Sampada Ukirde and (P.W.03) Ankush Gore. Evidentiary value of
the seizure panchanama is not substantive but is a corroborative one. In cases
where the guilt of the accused can be proved on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, then in that case seizure of stolen article from the accused or at the
instance of the accused may play an important role. Mere non-examination of
drawer of seizure panchanama and pancha witnesses will not be the basis to
discard direct convincing evidence establishing role of the accused in the
commission of the offence. For these reasons the argument that seizure
panchanama is not proved is fatal to the prosecution is not acceptable.
21. From the evidence of (P.W.01) Sampada Ukirde and independent
witness (P.W.03) Ankush Gore and (P.W.03) Mairya Nadar possession of broken
Mangalsutra from the accused snatched from the neck of the informant is
proved. As per evidence of P.W.6 Atul Avhad and P.W.04 Mariya Jhon the
recovery of broken piece of Mangalsutra is made on 31/10/2021. The incidence
took place on 31/10/2021. Further the conduct of the accused immediately after
the incidence when he was chased by the people, giving threat to kill them by
showing knife. Same conduct of the accused is with the Police Squad when they
tried to arrest the accused. The recovery of broken piece of Mangalsutra soon
after the incidence and the conduct of the accused raises presumption under
Section 141 of the Act and squarely fits within illustration A to Section 114.
“ The Court may presume:-
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft
is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen
..12/-
-- 11 of 16 --
Judgment 12 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
unless he can account for his possession.”
22. The possession of the stolen goods is statisfactorily explained
exonerating the accused from the role of a thief or absence of knowledge about
the goods possessed are stolen then accused can be exempted from raising
presumption against him. Neither in the cross-examination nor in the statement
of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure accused has given
any satisfactory explanation about possession of broken piece of Mangalsutra. In
these facts and circumstances the presumption under Section 114 of the Act
cannot be held as rejected.
23. Under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code ( For short IPC )
punishment for robbery is provided. The definition of robbery appears under
Section 390 IPC. Essential ingredients of the offence of robbery are: -
• Accused committed theft;
• Accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause.(i) death, hurt or
wrongful restraint.(ii) Fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
• He did either act for the end.
In order to constitute theft following five factors are essential :-
• Dishonest intention to take that property.
• The property must be movable.
• It should be taken out of the possession of another person.
• It should be taken without the consent of that person.
• There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the
taking of it.
24. Applying these ingredients to the present facts of the case,
(P.W.01) Sampada Ukirde who was going for her work by walking, accused
stopped her and tried to snatch mangalsutra from her neck and there was scuffle
in between them. The accused was chased by some people to whom threat to kill
was given by showing knife. The accused wrongfully restrained the informant
while going on road by walking. There was instant fear of hurt to the informant
..13/-
-- 12 of 16 --
Judgment 13 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
as accused scuffled with her to snatch mangalsutra from her neck. Further the
accused threatened the people by showing them knife. There is instant fear of
hurt to these people. The accused thereby taken away a piece of Mangalsutra
from the neck of the informant forcefully and without her consent amounts to
theft as defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. The act and the
conduct of the accused beyond reasonable doubt establishes that accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
For these reasons accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
392 of the Indian Penal Code. Finding to Point No.1 is recorded in the
affirmative.
25. Accused is produced before the Court from jail. Heard accused in
person. He submitted that minimum punishment be imposed. It is submitted by
Ld. Advocate for accused that since arrest in this crime accused is in jail.
Accused be awarded with the imprisonment already undergone by him. Ld.
A.P.P. submitted that other offences are registered against the accused. As
accused threatened the Police Officer, a separate case is registered and the trial is
pending. If, leniency is shown in awarding sentence accused will repeat the same
nature of offence. Ld. A.P.P. prayed for maximum punishment provided for the
offence.
26. In awarding justifiable sentence according to the offence
committed by the accused it will be helpful to refer judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Soman Vs. State of Kerla,(2013) 11 SCC 382 , in Para 27 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
“27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decision on
various different rationals – most prominent amongst
which would be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action
can be relevant from both a proportionality and
deterrence standpoint.
..14/-
-- 13 of 16 --
Judgment 14 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
27.3 Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the
sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or
gravity of the offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging
seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting
from it.”
27. In Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra,(2012)2
SCC 648 wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 84 that:-
“84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime.
One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of
appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence
commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the
manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The
courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the
sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence
would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the
gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence
and all other attendant circumstances”
Keeping in mind above observations and applying it to the facts of the
present case accused in a day light and the public place with intention and motive
snatched the Mangalsutra from the neck of the informant. This type of incidence
poses threat in the mind of common people while moving in a public place. The
nature of offence is such that the accused cannot be given benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act.
28. The informant is a woman doing household work in the house of
others. The accused after snatching given threat to the people to kill by showing
..15/-
-- 14 of 16 --
Judgment 15 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
knife. The threat is also given to the police squad when they tried to catch the
accused inspite of issuing warning to him. Gravity of the offence, the motive and
the conduct of the accused clearly establishes that punishment with imprisonment
alongwith fine will be justified.
29. In facts and circumstances of the case certainly, informant has lost
her Mangalsutra which was broken due to snatching of the accused. Loss of
mangalsutra certainly caused mental agony as well as loss and inconvenience to
the informant. Taking into consideration the amount of the golden mangalsutra
which is received to the informant, granting compensation of Rs.5,000/- will be
reasonable and justified. The punishment for the offence punishable under
Section 392 of I.P.C. is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extent to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine as the offence is committed in day light on a
public way. The gravity of the offence, nature of crime, conduct of the accused
and keeping in mind all other attending circumstamces following order is passed
which would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly finding is recorded to Point
No.2.
O R D E R
1) The accused Mahesh Sitappa Koli @ Mahya is convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section
248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment of 02 (Two) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand only), in default of payment of fine accused to suffer further Rigorous
Imprisonment for 02(Two) months.
2) The amount of fine if, recovered Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand
only) be given to the informant Smt. Sampada Deepak Ukirde as a compensation
under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) The period of detention undergone by the accused during
investigation, inquiry or trial be treated as set off against the term of
..16/-
-- 15 of 16 --
Judgment 16 C.C.No.03/PW/2022
imprisonment imposed upon the accused as per Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
4) Seized broken piece of Mangalsutra is already given to informant
on Bond, informant shall retain piece of mangalsutra, the bond stand cancelled
after appeal period.
5) All the Data of CCTV Footage copied in a pendrive be erased
permanently and pendrive be returned to the concerned Police Station after
appeal period.
6) Copy of the judgment be given to the accused free of cost
forthwith.
( Dictated on computer and pronounced in open Court.)
Date:-11/08/2022. (K.H.Thombre)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
09th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Delivered on: 11/08/2022
Dictated on : 11/08/2022
Typed on : 11/08/2022
Signed on : 11/08/2022
vnh
../-
-- 16 of 16 --