Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
Received on – 14.03.2018
Registered on – 16.03.2018
Decided on – 27.10.2023
Dura. – 05 Ys. 07 Ms. 13 Ds.
Exh.27
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 457/PW/2018
b. The date of commission of offence 23.11.2014 to 26.05.2017,
at Dharavi, Mumbai.
c. The name of the complainant Mr. Nitin Pawar, P.S.I., attached with
Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai.
d. The name of the accused persons,
their parentage and residence
1. Amresh Dalsingar Jaiswar,
Age - 28 Yrs., Occu. - Laborer,
2. Dalsingar Ramsingar Jaiswar,
Age - 50 Yrs., Occu. - Service,
3. Nirmaladevi Dalsingar Jaiswar,
Age - 48 Yrs., Occu. - Household,
4. Sheetalaprasad Dalsingar Jaiswar,
Age - 22 Yrs., Occu. - Education,
All R/o. Room No.1102, 11th Floor,
Sumit Hendre Residency, B Wing,
N. M. Joshi Marg, Byculla, Mumbai.
e. The offence complained of or
proved
Under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 504
r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code
f. The plea of the accused and their
examination (if any)
Accused pleaded not guilty.
Page - 1/7
-- 1 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
g. The final order Accused are acquitted.
h. The date of such order 27.10.2023.
Advocates for the Parties –
For State - Shri. Prasad Joshi, Ld. A.P.P.
For Accused - Shri. Satish B. Yadav, Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 27th October, 2023)
1. Accused are facing charge for offences punishable under Sections
323, 406, 498-A and 504 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief is as under –
The first informant Mrs. Deepa Amresh Jaiswar, on 26.05.2017,
approached Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai, and lodged report stating
that her marriage with Accused No.1, Mr. Amresh Dalsingar Jaiswar, was
solemnized on 23.11.2014. In the said marriage various valuables and cash
was given to him and other accused persons, in-laws of informant. After
marriage she had been to the house of accused persons, but all the
ornaments from her person were removed by them. She was sent back to
her parents and remained there for about two years. At the time of
marriage the construction of new house of accused persons was also going
on. It was completed, but she has not been brought back. They
conditioned her return by demanding huge amount. After returning they
harassed her in various ways. They caused physical and emotional
violence and also not returned her articles. On the basis of said
information, the offence at C. R. No.228 of 2017, for offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, etc. of Indian Penal Code, was registered.
Page - 2/7
-- 2 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
3. Investigation started. During investigation, Investigating Officer
seized certain articles. Then he recorded the statement of witnesses,
collected other material. After completion of investigation as sufficient
evidence found against accused persons he filed final report under Section
173 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Charge was framed by one of my Ld. Predecessor, at Exh.3. All the
accused persons vide their separate pleas, Exhs.4 to 7, pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined two
witnesses, as P.W.1, Mrs. Deepa Amresh Jaiswar, informant, P.W.2, Mrs.
Amalavati Mewalal Jaiswar, the mother of informant, vide Exhs.9 and 24,
respectively. Prosecution also relied on contents of First Information
Report, Exh.10.
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 in furtherance of their
common intention misappropriated stridhan owned by
informant? ....In the negative.
2. Does it prove that the accused in furtherance of their
common intention treated informant with cruelty to meet
an unlawful demand of dowry, etc.? ....In the negative.
3. Does it prove that the accused in furtherance of their
common intention voluntarily caused hurt to the
informant ? ....In the negative.
Page - 3/7
-- 3 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
4. Does it prove that the accused in furtherance of their
common intention intentionally insulted the informant
as to provoke her breach of public peace? ....In the negative.
5. What order? ....Accu. acquitted.
REASONS
As to Point Nos.1 to 4 –
Hurt, demand of dowry, misappropriation and provocation
6. All these points are interrelated, based on common facts and
common evidence, therefore, I decided all of them with common
reasoning. The main witness examined by the prosecution is, informant
P.W.1, Mrs. Deepa Amresh Jaiswar, vide Exh.9. The summary of her
evidence is that after marriage she has been to the house of accused
persons. The marriage was solemnized on 23.11.2014, at Jaunpur,
Uttarpradesh. Various household articles and amount was given to
accused. The marriage expenses of about Rs.12 lacs were also born by her
parents. When she had been to accused persons for cohabitation, they
asked her to complete her education. So also construction of their house
was incomplete. On both these counts accused persons sent her back to her
parents. After 11.10.2016, flat was ready. Accused went to her and all
ornaments were taken by one of the accused, Mrs. Nirmaladevi, they also
demanded Rs.10 lacs. They quarreled, abused and beaten her on account
of sundry disputes. On 09.01.2017, she found the leakage of gas in her
house and she was beaten by accused persons. On 11.01.2017, accused
persons again went to her and informed that they are not willing to
continue with relationship. On 12.01.2017, she lodged report. On
20.01.2017, accused persons again went to her, quarreled there and
demanded Rs.20,000/-, then she went to police station and lodged report,
Exh.10.
Page - 4/7
-- 4 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
7. Another witness P.W.2, Mrs. Amalavati Mewalal Jaiswar, the
mother of informant, in her evidence, Exh.24, stated nothing and turned
hostile. In cross examination also transpired nothing.
8. Thus, the main evidence on record is evidence of informant Mrs.
Deepa, only. The said evidence reflects that after the marriage she had
been to the house of accused persons but was immediately sent back. This
evidence if read in its whole contest it reflects that she was not residing
with accused persons and accused persons repeatedly had been to her
when she was residing with her parents in U.P. and there they caused
various acts of ill-treatment and demand of dowry. This fact itself seems
difficult to believe. It can not be relied upon that accused persons
repeatedly go to her parents and did these acts.
9. Further, this episode continued for about five years and during this
long span of time informant or her parents did nothing. Then after five
years F.I.R. came to be registered. It is not clarified or explained, why this
delay occurred. The factor of strained relationship from very beginning is
admitted. The possibility of concoction and false implication can not be
ruled out. The delay and this possibility creates doubt about the
genuineness of allegations.
10. If we go through the contents of the evidence of the said witness it
shows that just general statements are made about the alleged demand of
dowry and other sort of ill-treatment. The material particulars about the
exact date, place of incidence, time, etc. are missing everywhere. On its
face the evidence can not be accepted and relied upon to held the accused
persons guilty.
11. It is also came on record that the matter is now settled and
informant does not want to proceed further. She withdrawn her allegations
Page - 5/7
-- 5 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
and requested this court to close the proceedings. In view of above status
of evidence and this aspect it is clear that evidence came on record is not
enough to hold the accused persons guilty. Accused are bound to be
acquitted. Therefore, I recorded my findings on all the points in the
negative and passing following order -
ORDER
A. Accused are acquitted vide Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, of offence punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 504
r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
B. Their bail bonds stands canceled.
C. The properties seized during investigation are directed to be
returned to the informant Mrs. Deepa Amresh Jaiswar, after appeal period.
D. Accused persons shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 27.10.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 6/7
-- 6 of 7 --
C. C. No. 457 PW 2018 State Vs Amresh and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-003448-2018
Exh.27
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 : 27.10.2023
Signed by P.O. on : 27.10.2023
Uploaded on : 31.10.2023
Page - 7/7
-- 7 of 7 --