Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
Received on – 01.01.2020
Registered on – 01.01.2020
Decided on – 03.11.2023
Dura. – 03 Ys. 10 Ms. 02 Ds.
Exh.13
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Komalsing Rajput)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)
a. The serial number of the case 8/PW/2020
b. The date of commission of offence 16.09.2019, at about 11.00 a.m. in the
morning, Water Field Road, Bandra
West, Mumbai.
c. The name of the complainant Mr. Dinkar Kadam, P.S.I., attached with
Bandra Police Station, Mumbai.
d. The name of the accused person,
his parentage and residence
Mr. Sumedh Pradnyashilkaruna Samrat,
Age - 29 Yrs., Occu. - Service,
R/o. Room No.410, 4th Floor,
Vajra Building, Western Sector,
Anushakti Nagar, B.A.R.C.,
Mankhurd, Mumbai.
e. The offence complained of or
proved
Under Sections 354-D, 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code
f. The plea of the accused and his
examination (if any)
Accused pleaded not guilty.
g. The final order Accused is acquitted.
h. The date of such order 03.11.2023.
Page - 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
Advocates for the Parties –
For State - Shri. Prasad Joshi, Ld. A.P.P.
For Accused - Shri. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 03rd November, 2023)
1. Accused is facing charge for offences punishable under Sections
354-D, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief is as under –
The informant Miss. M. and accused were working in the same
office. Accused repeatedly proposed her. Informant updated him about her
status that she has been engaged with another person and going to marry
with him. Despite that accused repeatedly sent messages proposing her for
marriage. On 16.09.2019, at 11.00 O'clock in the morning, the accused
sent message to informant stating that he is going to commit suicide.
Informant informed about it to her fiance. Both of them contacted the
accused. Accused abused and threatened them. Therefore, informant
approached Bandra Police Station and lodged report. The said offence was
registered at C. R. No.775 of 2019, for offences punishable under Section
354-D, etc. of Indian Penal Code.
3. Investigation started. During investigation, Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of witnesses, collected other material and as it is
transpired that accused has committed the offence he filed final report
under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Charge was framed by one of my Ld. Predecessor, at Exh.2. The
accused vide his plea, Exh.3, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution in support of its case examined only one witness i.e.
Page - 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
informant as P.W.1, Miss M., vide Exh.6 and also relied on contents of
First Information Report, Exhs.7 and 8.
5. Heard both the sides. The defence of the accused is of total denial
and false implication. Considering the evidence on record, submissions of
both the parties and other facts and circumstances, the following points
arrived for my determination. I recorded my findings on each of them for
the reasons discussed below -
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does it prove that the accused stalked informant? ....In the negative.
2. Does it prove that the accused gave provocation
intending that it may cause the informant to break
public peace or commit any other offence? ....In the negative.
3. Does it prove that the accused threatened informant to
injury, as to cause him alarm? ....In the negative.
4. What order? ....Accu. is acquitted.
REASONS
As to Point Nos.1 to 3 – Stalking, provocation and threat
6. All these points are interrelated, based on common facts and
common evidence, therefore, I decided all of them with common
reasoning. The only witness examined by the prosecution i.e. informant as
P.W.1, Miss M., vide Exh.6, deposed that she knows the accused who was
her colleague. She was having talking terms with him. They were
exchanging messages. In the year 2019, accused proposed her for
marriage through text message. She refused it. Despite that accused
pursued her. On 16.09.2019, he sent text message informing that he is
ending his life. Therefore, she approached police and lodged report,
Exhs.7 and 8.
Page - 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
7. If we considered this evidence in respect of the main charge of
stalking as provided by the definition under Section 354-D(1)(i) of the
Indian Penal Code, as –
(1) Any man who -
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman
to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of
disinterest by such woman;
8. Thus, the stalking means any act caused to any person against her
will with intention to harass her despite clear indication of disinterest by
her. It implies that intentional act without having any self regret or any
emotion on the part of the accused, with sole intention to harass the other.
If we applied this test to above evidence the elements of intention to
harass, disinterest by informant and her unwillingness in any act of
accused, are totally missing. No doubt it can be inferred that the accused
had proposed informant for marriage and when she refused he sent
message to her that he is going to end his life. Both the parties were of
very young age when incidence occurred. The natural instincts of having
attraction of opposite sex and making attempts to attract her may have
cause the act as narrated in the evidence, on the part of accused. But as
informant refused proposal on account of same instincts such message
may have been sent out of frustration. To attract the offence of stalking
and threat some additional cogent material is necessary. But such material
is missing from evidence.
9. In respect of provocation and threat also there is nothing in the said
evidence. For absence of basic or material particulars constituting offences
with which accused is charged, there accrues doubt whether the act is
threat and stalking or not? Accused is entitled of benefit of this doubt. The
charge is not proved and therefore, in view of these findings I recorded my
findings on above points in the negative and hence, following order -
Page - 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
ORDER
A. Accused Mr. Sumedh Pradnyashilkaruna Samrat, is acquitted vide
Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, of offence punishable
under Sections 354-D, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
B. His bail bond stands canceled.
C. Accused, shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 03.11.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
C. C. No. 8 PW 2020 State Vs Sumedh
CNR No.MHMM18-000480-2020
Exh.13
I affirm that the contents of this PDF file judgment are same word for
ward as per original judgment.
Court Name : Komalsing Rajput
Name of Steno : S. R. Parab
Date : 03.11.2023
Signed by P.O. on : 03.11.2023
Uploaded on : 07.11.2023
Page - 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --