Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
Received on – 22.02.2023
Registered on – 24.02.2023
Decided on – 21.02.2025
Dura. – 01 Ys. 11 Ms. 29 Ds.
Exh.14
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Komalsing Rajput)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)
(a) The serial number of the case 406/PW/2023
(b) The date of commission of the
offence
Between 15.05.2021 to 19.08.2021
(c) The name of the complainant Mr. Dhanraj Koli, P.S.I., attached with
Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai.
(d) The name of the accused and his
parentage and residence
Mr. Shitalaprasad Mataprasad Patwa,
Age – 54 years, Occupation – Business,
R/o. Room No.16, Plot No.55,
Nutan Kailash Kutir, Sion East, Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of or
proved
Under Section 379 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 21.02.2025.
Advocates for the Parties –
For State - Smt. Shanti Komati, Ld. A.P.P.
For Accused - Shri. R. R. Mishra, AdvocatePage - 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 21st February, 2025)
1. Accused is facing charge for an offence punishable under Section
379 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief is as under –
The First Informant Mr. Pawan Maniram Patwa, possesses two
motorcycles, including model Honda Unicorn, bearing registration
No.MH-01-BH-1744. He uses any of them as per his wish. As he was not
using said motorcycle, on 15.05.2021, he parked it inside the Goldfield
Compound, Dharavi, Mumbai. On 19.08.2021, while returning to home, at
about 09.00 O’Clock in the evening, he found the said motorcycle missing
from there. He searched it for some days, but as it is not traced, on
24.08.2021, he lodged report with Dharavi Police Station, at C.R. No.817
of 2021, for an offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal
Code, against an unknown person.
The investigation started. The spot panchanama was prepared. The
stolen motorcycle was found at House No.126, Village – Yadavpur, Mauja
– Takiya Kanungo, Tehasil – Bhiti, Dist. - Ambedkar Nagar, Uttarpradesh,
from where it was seized, which is house of accused. The statement of the
accused was recorded and he claimed that he had taken away the vehicle
from the place where it was parked as he has purchased it, informant and
his father lodged false report to pressurize them to withdraw the
complaints lodged against the informant and his father. The other evidence
was collected pertaining to ownership of the vehicle and it’s insurance.
The Investigating Officer, in addition to the First Information Report and
Spot Panchanama, only seized vehicle and recorded the statement of the
accused and did nothing. Without ascertaining the exact nature of
incidence and collecting necessary admissible evidence he jumped to
Page - 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
conclusion of guilt of accused and completed the investigation. Then filed
final report in this court, under Section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, against accused.
3. The accused appeared and charge was framed, at Exh.5, to which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support
of it’s case relied on evidence of the only witness, the statement of which
is recorded by Investigating Officer, i.e. informant Mr. Pawan Maniram
Patwa, vide Exh.6, who proved First Information Report, Exh.7. It also
relied on the documents admitted by the accused, i.e. the spot
panchanama, Exh.10, and seizure receipt, Exh.11.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused written notes of arguments, Exh.13,
filed by the informant. 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 committed theft of the
property belonged to informant ? ....In the negative.
2. What order? ....Accused acquitted.
REASONS
5. Before proceeding about the proof of charge on the basis of
evidence came on record it is necessary to mention that the First
Information Report is lodged against unknown person. In such a situation
it is necessary on the part of Investigating Officer, to collect evidence in
respect of two basic aspects. First, whether theft actually occurred and
second, who has committed the offence.
Page - 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
6. However, the record of investigation shows that in the name of
charge sheet i.e. record of evidence collected after registration of crime,
the Investigating Officer in the name of evidence just collected two pieces
of documents, first, the seizure receipt and second, the statement of the
accused himself. The statement of accused is neither proved before court
nor admissible in evidence. Therefore, it lacks evidential value and not in
any way helpful to the prosecution.
7. The another document i.e. seizure receipt, Exh.11, simply mentions
the nature of property, i.e. vehicle seized and the particulars of place, from
where it is seized. The accused admitted this document, but there found
nothing in this document which will connect the accused either with the
seizure itself or the alleged act of theft. The accused also admitted the spot
panchanama, Exh.10. In this document also there is nothing incriminating
present in it, which will connect the accused, either with the theft or his
connection with stolen property.
8. The summary of the above discussion, based only on the contents of
the charge sheet itself, is that there is nothing collected during
investigation which will connect the accused with the alleged act.
Therefore, even if the accused accepts the whole final report as it is, no
conviction is warranted. If we go to the evidence came on record during
trial, in support of such weak case, the only evidence of P.W.1, Mr.
Pawan, an informant, it shows that he simply deposed facts about the theft
occurred. He stated that an unknown person stolen his motorcycle. There
is nothing in it to connect the accused with the theft.
9. The above discussion collectively leads to inference that there is
nothing, either in the charge sheet or even in the evidence came on record
during trial, to connect him with the charge. Therefore, I recorded my
Page - 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
finding on the point framed above in the negative. At the same time before
passing final order it is also necessary to mention that the vehicle is
registered in the name of informant and it needs to be returned to him.
Considering finding recorded and this fact, following order -
ORDER
A. Accused is acquitted vide Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
B. His bail bond stands canceled.
C. The vehicle seized, i.e. Honda Unicorn motorcycle, bearing
registration No.MH-01-BH-1744, shall be handed over to informant after
appeal period.
D. Accused, shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 21.02.2025 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
C. C. No. 406 PW 2023 State Vs Shitalaprasad
CNR No.MHMM18-002420-2023
Exh.14
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 : 21.02.2025
Signed by P.O. on : 21.02.2025
Uploaded on : 13.03.2025
Page - 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --