Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C.C. No.77/PW/2022
MHMM180002562022 Received on 13/01/2022
Registered on 13/01/2022
Decided on 17/03/2022
Duration 00 Y 02 M 04 D
IN THE COURT OF ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
09th COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
( Presided over by Shri. K.H.Thombre )
Exh.09
Particulars of offence:
A. The serial number of the
case
: C.C. No.77/PW/2022
B. The date of commission of
the offence
: 29.12.2021
C. The name of the
complainant (if any)
: State of Maharashtra through
Mahim Police Station.
D. The name of the accused
person, and his parentage
and residence
: Manirul Mohammad Hussain
Mondal,Age – 28 years,
Occupation- Electrician,
R/o. Opp.Police Colony
Bldg.No.22,Footpath,
Mahim(W), Mumbai-16
E. The offences complained of
or proved
: u/sec. 457,380 of the I.P.C.
F. The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any)
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
G. The final order : The accused is acquitted.
H. The date of such order : 17/03/2022
..2/-
-- 1 of 4 --
Judgment 2 C.C. No.77/PW/2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the prosecution :- A. P. P. Smt. M.F.Pakajade
For the accused :- Adv. Mr.P.P.Khot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 17/03/2022 )
The accused is facing trial for the offence punishable u/sec. 457,
380 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution examined Navjit Namdeo Shedge (PW-1) The
prosecution relied on FIR at Exh.05.
3. PW-1 Navjit Namdeo Shedge is the first informant who deposed
that on 28/12/2021 at about 12.30 a.m. he went outside the house to bring the
dinner, his brother went to meet his friend, while leaving the door of the house
was locked. It is further deposed by P.W.1 Navjit that on returning to the house
he found that lock of the door was broken and lights were on and found one thief
jumped from the gallery and ran away from the lane. Inspite of chasing that thief
he ran away. Informant came back to his house, called his brother and asked him
to open the bolt of the door tide by the accused from inside. After entering into
the house by breaking the lock informant found that clothes in cupboard were
scattered, cash of Rs.6,000/- was stolen, people caught hold the theif and given in
the custody of the police.
4. P.W.1 Navjit admitted the contents of the FIR Exh.5 as correct. On
production of the accused on Video Conference P.W.1 Navjit identified the
accused as the same who was entered in his house and caught hold by the people.
5. In cross-examination P.W.1 Navjit admitted that he was not able to
see the face of the thief when he jumped from the gallery. According to the
..3/-
-- 2 of 4 --
Judgment 3 C.C. No.77/PW/2022
informant the door of the house was locked when he returned to home by
bringing dinner then how he could see the accused behind the locked door of the
house is not explained by the prosecution through this witness. As P.W.1 Navjit
admitted that he could not see the face of the thief when he jumped from the
wall. Identification of the accused when produced on V.C. creates doubt that it
was the accused who entered in the house of the informant and jumped from the
wall.
6. According to the prosecution people caught hold that thief who is
accused and brought him to the house of the informant and then was handed over
to the police. As per this version the accused was immediately caught hold by
the people by chasing the accused. If the accused was immediately caught hold
by the people gathered there then the alleged stolen cash of Rs.6,000/- could have
been recovered from the accused at that moment. There is no evidence on record
to establish that the alleged stolen cash of Rs.6,000/- was recovered from the
accused or from any other person during the investigation or prior to the
registration of FIR.
7. The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the accused is the
person who entered in the house of informant, jumped from the wall, chased and
caught hold by the people and was handed over to the police. No evidence is on
record to establish that it was the accused who was entered in the house of
informant and same person is caught hold by the people by chasing him.
8. On scrutiny of the evidence it reveals that no explanation is given
by the P.W.1 Navjit that how he saw the face of the accused when the door of his
house was locked from inside. As per the evidence of P.W.1 Navjit cash of
Rs.6,000/- was stolen from his house. When the accused was caught hold
immediately by the people alleged amount was not recovered from the accused.
No evidence is on record to establish that the people who caught hold the accused
..4/-
-- 3 of 4 --
Judgment 4 C.C. No.77/PW/2022
and handed over to the police has any knowledge that it was the accused who
entered in the house of the informant. On the basis of this evidence guilt of the
accused cannot be said to be proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Following
order is passed.
O R D E R
1. Accused Manirul Mohammad Hussain Mondal is acquitted of
the offence punishable u/sec. 457, 380 of the I.P.C. vide section
248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if, not required in
any other offence. Inform the Jail Authority accordingly.
3. The accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437(A) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Jail Authority is directed to release the
accused on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand
only) and to submit the report accordingly to this Court.
4. The seized adjustable spanner, screw driver and mobile handset be
returned to the original owner after appeal period.
5. (Dictated on computer and pronounced in open court)
Date:17/03/2022. (K.H.Thombre)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
09th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 17-03-2022
Transcribed on : 17-03-2022
Signed on : 17-03-2022
vnh
../-
-- 4 of 4 --