Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C.C. No.206/PW/2018
Presented on : 07.02.2018
Registered on : 07.02.2018
Decided on : 21.11.2019
Duration : 01 Y. 09 M. 14 D
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Jaydeo Y. Ghule)
CNR NO. MHMM180037242018
Exh.14
COURT CASE NO.206/PW/2018
The State (At the instance of
Shahu Nagar Police Station in
C.R. No.298/2017) ......... Prosecution
V/s.
1. Raju Balappa Koli / Konamgiri,
Age – 27 years, Occ – Business,
2. Balappa Timappa Koli / Konamgiri,
Age – 58 years, Occ – Service,
3. Devamma Balappa Koli / Konamgiri,
Age – 55 years, Occ – Business,
4. Anita Hanumanta Koli @ Anu,
Age – 35 years, Occ – Housewife,
5. Laxmi Omprakash Konamgiri,
Age – 31 years, Occ – Housewife,
All Res. at – Dharavi, Mumbai.
6. Sunita Kushal Madagu,
Age – 30 years, Occ – Housewife,
Res. at – Kanjurmarg, Mumbai. ........ Accused
1
-- 1 of 6 --
C.C. No.206/PW/2018
Charge : Under Section 498 (A), 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Advocate of Prosecution Mr. Shaikh,
Advocate for accused Mrs. Sachdev.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 21.11.2019)
1. The accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Section 498 (A), 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short “the Code”).
2. The facts in brief are as follows :
The informant Pournima Raju Koli informed to the police that she
got married with accused no.1 on 25.02.2016 and thereafter, she went to
reside with inlaws at her matrimonial house. At the time of marriage
informant's parents gave cash of Rs.2 lakhs and 06 tola gold jwellery to the
accused. Accused no.1 used to come at home only for dinner. Accused
no.1 assaulted and gave abuses to informant after consuming liquor.
Accused no.1 did not do any work. After four months of marriage he used
to go for work in private company. Informant does all household work, but
her inlaws gave abuses and did not give her food. Accused no.2 tried to
come close and looked with bad intention. Accused no.4 to 6 used to
quarrel with me and gave abuses. Accused no.1 always talks with his
friend Sheetal Kelkar on phone. Accused no.1 assaulted, abused and told
her to go at her paternal home as she asked him about talks on phone with
2
-- 2 of 6 --
C.C. No.206/PW/2018
his friend. Informant has informed the same to her mother on phone.
Therefore, her mother gave understanding to accused no.1 on phone, but
no use. Accused did not allow informant to contact her relatives and
neighbours. In March, 2017 she was very weak due to illness. Accused
no.1 did not give any medical treatment to informant and on 26.03.2017
send her at her paternal house at Pune by private bus. After that he never
came to see her. As per information police registered the crime against the
accused. During investigation police reveals that all the accused gave
abuses and assaulted informant on small issues. Also harassed her
mentally and physically. Hence, filed charge sheet U/Sec.498 (A), 406,
323, 504 r/w 34 of the Code.
3. I have framed the charge. The contents of the offence were read
over and explained to the accused in their vernacular. The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In view of the offences levelled against the accused following points
do arise for determination and my findings is against the said point for the
reasons mentioned below :
Sr.
No.
Point Finding
1 Whether the prosecution proves that all
accused in furtherance of their common
intention from 20.03.2016 to 26.03.2017 at
Anna Nagar, near veer Kamraj High School,
Dharavi, Mumbai subjected the informant
Pournima Raju Koli to cruelty and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.498
(A) r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
3
-- 3 of 6 --
C.C. No.206/PW/2018
2 Whether the prosecution proves that all the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention misappropriated the StriDhan
property of the informant and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.406
r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
3 Whether the prosecution proves that all the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention voluntarily caused hurt to the
informant and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec.323 r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
4 Whether the prosecution proves that all the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention intentionally insulted the
informant in filthy words and thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.504
r/w 34 of the Code ? No.
5 What order ? Accused are
acquitted.
REASONS
5. To prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined informant
Pournima Raju Koli as PW 1 at Exh.13.
As to point No.1 to 4:
6. The informant examined. She deposed that accused no.1 is her
husband. Other accused are relatives of her husband. Her marriage with
accused no.1 was solemnized at the house of accused. After marriage
4
-- 4 of 6 --
C.C. No.206/PW/2018
quarrel was started in between her and accused. Other than minor quarrel
nothing was happened. The informant not supported the prosecution case.
The informant not deposed anything against the accused.
7. In such circumstances no incriminating evidence has come on record
against the accused. During cross examination witness admitted that he
has compromised the matter with the accused out of court. She has no
grievance against the accused. She is not interested to proceed further
against the accused. The prosecution thus failed to establish guilt of the
accused for the offence leveled against them. The benefit of the situation
has to be awarded to the accused and therefore, I answer point no.1 to 4 in
negative.
As to point no.5 :
8. The prosecution failed to prove that all the accused gave abuses and
assaulted informant on small issues. Also harassed her mentally and
physically. Hence, I answer point no.1 to 4 in the negative. The
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, I hold that accused are liable to be acquitted. Accordingly, I
answer the point no.5 and pass the following order :
ORDER
i. The accused no.1. Raju Balappa Koli / Konamgiri, 2. Balappa
Timappa Koli / Konamgiri, 3. Devamma Balappa Koli / Konamgiri, 4. Anita
Hanumanta Koli @ Anu and 5. Laxmi Omprakash Konamgiri are acquitted
5
-- 5 of 6 --
C.C. No.206/PW/2018
as per Sec.248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the
offences punishable under Section 498 (A), 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
ii. The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
iii. Accused be complied provisions of U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.PC.
iv. Muddemal property i.e. gold ring of 5.030 gram be returned to the
informant on due identification after appeal period is over.
v. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
(Jaydeo Y. Ghule)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 21.11.2019 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
srp.
6
-- 6 of 6 --