Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: JudgmentC. C. No . : 3470/PS/2017 ~1~
MHMM180029412018 Filed on : 22/09/2017.
Registered on : 17/11/2017.
Decided on : 27/06/2023.
Duration : 05 Y., 09 M., 05 D.
Exh. :
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
71ST COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI. ATUL B. JADHAV)
C. C. No.3470/PS/2017
The State of Maharashtra
Through : Office Incharge of
Santacruz Police Station. …. Complainant.
V/s.
Gaurav Pankaj Gandhi.
Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business.
R.o.: Vileparle (W), Mumbai. …. Accused.
Appearance : Learned A.P.P. Shri. Prasad Joshi for the State.
Learned Advocate Smt. M. P. Tuli for accused.
J u d g m e n t D a t e : 27/06/2023
Accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under
section 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code r/w. 134 (A)(B) of Motor Vehicle
Act.
2. My Ld. Predecessor has recorded plea of accused at Exh.2.
The particulars of plea read over and explained to accused to which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the prosecution
case and the evidence placed on record, following points do arise for my
-- 1 of 5 --
JudgmentC. C. No . : 3470/PS/2017 ~2~
determination. My findings thereon along with my reasons are, as
follows.
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does prosecution prove that, accused
on 02/04/2017, at about 11.00 hours,
at signal near Podar School, Santacruz
(W), Mumbai, drove Hunai motor car
bearing registration No.MH46BA
0633 on road on a public way, in a
manner so rash and negligent, as to
endanger human life and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 279 of the Indian Penal Code? Negative.
2 Does prosecution prove that, on
aforesaid date time and place, accused
caused hurt to the informant viz.
Dhirendra Shivprasad Nag by passing
his above mentioned motor car's wheel
over the informant's left leg, so rashly
and negligently, as to endanger human
life or the personal safety of others and
thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 337of Indian
Penal Code ? Negative.
3 Does prosecution prove that, on
aforesaid date time and place, accused
fled away without providing medical
aid to the injured and without
-- 2 of 5 --
JudgmentC. C. No . : 3470/PS/2017 ~3~
informing police and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 134 (A) (B) of Motor Vehicle
Act ? Negative.
4 What order ? As per final
order.
R e a s o n s
As to Point Nos.1 to 3 :
4. The prosecution only relied on the evidence of informant
viz. Dhirendra (PW1) at Exh.4. My Ld. Predecessor has closed the
evidence of prosecution by passing order below Exh.1 on 18/04/2023.
5. I have recorded examination of accused under section 313
of Criminal Procedure Code at Exh.5. The defence of accused is of total
denial. I have heard arguments of Ld. APP Shri. Prasad Joshi and Ld.
Advocate Smt. M. P. Tuli for accused.
6. The subject matter and evidence relating to point No.1, 2
and No.3 are same. Therefore, in order to avoid repetition, I have taken
all points for joint consideration.
7. According to prosecution accused on 12/04/2017, at
around 11.00 a.m., at signal near Poddar school, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai, accused drove his Hunai motor car bearing registration
No.MH46BA0633 in a rash and negligent manner and caused injury
to leg of the informant and without providing any medical aid fled
away from the scene of offence.
8. The informant Dhirendra (PW1) deposed that, on
02/04/2017, he proceeds towards Santacruz from Khar by motor
cycle. On one signal wheel of car of accused went on his leg. He fell
-- 3 of 5 --
JudgmentC. C. No . : 3470/PS/2017 ~4~
down, while accused reversing his car. The F.I.R. has been proved by
the prosecution at the mouth of informant, which is at Exh.5. During
cross examination the informant admitted that, the car in question was
not in high speed and the matter has been settled in between him and
the accused. Now in the light of above incident it is necessary to see
that whether the rash and negligent driving of accused proved by the
prosecution, which caused injury to the left leg of informant. It is to be
noted that actually, where the incident has taken place has not stated
by the informant nor the registration number of the car in question.
During cross examination informant admitted that, the car in question
was not in high speed. It has not come in the evidence of informant that
in what manner the car was driven by accused, which would say the
rash and negligent driving of the accused. Further the injury sustained
by informant is not stated by him. Therefore, no offence made out
against accused. The material witnesses such as eye witness, Medical
Officer Investigating Officer, are not examined by prosecution.
Therefore, I am of opinion that, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused is entitled to get the
benefit of doubt. In the result, I answered point No.1, No.2 and No.3 in
the negative and proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Accused viz. Gaurav Pankaj Gandhi, is hereby acquitted
of the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 of Indian
Penal Code r/w. 134 (A)(B) of Motor Vehicle Act, as per
Sec. 255 (i) of Criminal Procedure Code.
ii. Bail bonds of accused are continued till appeal period.
-- 4 of 5 --
JudgmentC. C. No . : 3470/PS/2017 ~5~
iii. Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court.
Date :27/06/2023.
SRD.
(A. B. Jadhav)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 27/06/2023.
Transcribed on : 27/06/2023.
Signed on : 01/07/2023.
SRD.
-- 5 of 5 --