Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment --1-- C.C.No.307/PW/2018
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji.
MHMM18-004158-2018 Received on : 16/02/2018.
Registered on : 16/02/2018.
Decided on : 15/12/2025.
Duration : Y M D
07 09 29
Exh.9
PART A
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
71st COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by : Shri. A. B. JADHAV)
(J.O.Code-MH1900)
Criminal Case No.307/PW/2018
(CNR MHMM18-004158-2018)
Crime No.363/2017, Police Station : Police Station-Santacruz, Mumbai.
Offence Punishable Under Section 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution : State of Maharashtra Through-
Police Station-Santacruz, Mumbai.
For Prosecution : Ld. A.P.P. Shri Prasad Pradeep Joshi.
Accused : Bhagwanji Amarsingh Gohil.
Age: 55 years,
Occupation : Tailor.
R/o. Bhayender, Dist.-Thane.
For Accused : Ld. Advocate Shri Kaushal Sharma.
-- 1 of 11 --
Judgment --2-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
PART B
( Criminal Manual Chapter VI para No.44(ii) )
Date of Offence 23/07/2017.
Date of FIR 23/07/2017.
Date of filing of charge-sheet 16/02/2018.
Date of charge framed 11/12/2018.
Date of commencement of evidence 24/01/2023.
Date on which case reserved for Judgment 06/12/2025.
Date of the Judgment 15/12/2025.
Date of the Sentencing Order ---
Accused Details
Sr.
No.
Name
of the
accused
Date of
arrest
Date of
release
on bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sentenc
e
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergon
e during
trial for
purpose
of Section
428,
Cr.P.C.
1. Bhagwan
ji
Amarsing
h Gohil.
Notice
under
section
41(1)
of
Cr.P.C.
Section
354 (A)
of
Indian
Penal
Code.
Acquitted Nil Nil
-- 2 of 11 --
Judgment --3-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
PART C
(Criminal Manual Chapter VI Para No.44(ii))
List of Prosecution / Defence / Court witnesses
A) Prosecution Witnesses :
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Nature Exhibit
1) Victim Informant 5
2) A.P.I. Pravin Vilas Chavan. Investigating Officer 7
B) Defence Witnesses :
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Nature Exhibit
Nil Nil Nil Nil
C) Court Witnesses :
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Nature Exhibit
Nil Nil Nil Nil
List of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits
A) Exhibits by Prosecution :
Sr. No. Description Exhibit
1) F.I.R. 6
B) Exhibits by Defence:
Sr. No. Description Exhibit
Nil Nil Nil
-- 3 of 11 --
Judgment --4-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
C) Exhibits by Court :
Sr. No. Description Exhibit
Nil Nil Nil
D) Muddemal :
Sr. No. Name Description
Nil Nil Nil
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 15/12/2025)
Accused Bhagwanji Amarsingh Gohil, is facing the trial for the
offence punishable under sections 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code
(Hereinafter said Code is referred as I.P.C.).
Prosecution case in nutshell as under :
(In present case, informant is lady, hence to hide her identity
instead of her name term ‘victim’ used).
2. According to the informant/victim she residing at Room
No.21, Hawaldar Chawl, 138, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (E), Mumbai.
She used to lookafter the shop namely ‘Textile Treasure’ of her father by
name Satish Zhaveri. The shop is located at Popat Bappa Shopping Center,
Shop No.6, Santacruz (W), Mumbai.
3. Further it is contended by victim that, on 23/07/2017, at
around 02.30 p.m., she was present in her father’s shop and her uncle by
name Kiran Zhaveri sat on left side of the counter. The informant was
setting goods standing outside the counter at right side. At that time
accused Bhagwanji Amarsingh Gohil, who is having tailoring shop on the
mazenine floor of the shop of her father, touched to her backside, while
-- 4 of 11 --
Judgment --5-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
getting out from the shop. The victim asked him as to why he had touched
her. Then accused replied that, ^vkrs tkrs gkr yx tkrk gS mles D;k gSA*
and went away. The informant narrated the said fact to her husband and
lodged complaint to the police station-Santacruz.
4. On the basis of report lodged by informant, the Santacruz
police have registered the C. R. No.363/2017 and the case is handed over
to P.S.I. Shri. Pravin Chavan for further investigation. Investigating Officer
during his investigation recorded statements of witnesses. The
Investigating Officer during his investigation found that, accused has
committed an offence, therefore, he sent chargesheet to the Court.
5. Accused appeared before the court. My Ld. Predecessor has
framed charge against the accused, vide (Exh.2). The contents of charge
are read over and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has
examined as many as two witnesses those are as follows…
SR. No. Name of witness Witness No. Exhibit No.
1 Victim/Informant. (PW1) (Exh.-5)
2 A.P.I. Pravin Vilas Chavan. (PW2) (Exh.-7)
7. Beside this prosecution also relied on the following
documents…
Sr. No. Name Exhibit No.
1 F.I.R. (Exh.-6)
8. Despite of opportunities the prosecution failed to secure the
presence of further witnesses and as the matter is very old one, by order
dated 25/07/2025, passed below (Exh.1), prosecution evidence is closed.
-- 5 of 11 --
Judgment --6-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
9. I have recorded the examination of accused under section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure which is at (Exh.-8). The defence of the
accused is that total denial and falsely implication. The accused in order to
substantiate his defence did not enter into witness box nor examined any
witness.
10. I have heard elaborated arguments of Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Prasad
Pradeep Joshi for the State and Ld. Advocate Shri. Kaushal Sharma for
accused.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the prosecution
case and the evidence placed on record, following points do arise for my
determination. My findings thereon along with my reasons are, as follows.
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does prosecution prove that, the accused on
23/07/2017, at around 14.30 hours, at
Popat Bappa Shopping Center, Shop No.6,
Santacruz (W), Mumbai, made physical
contact involving unwelcome and explict
sexual overtures to informant/victim, and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 354 (A) of Indian Penal Code?
Negative.
2 What order ? As per final
order.
R e a s o n s
As to point No.1 :-
12. In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution has to
prove that, the accused made physical contact involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures. Clause I of section 354 (A) of I.P.C. provides
-- 6 of 11 --
Judgment --7-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
that, physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures of accused shall constitute an offence of sexual
harassment, which is punishable under sub-section 2 of said section.
13. Considering the above legal provision I would like to discuss the
evidence on record. The victim/informant (PW1) in her evidence at
(Exh.-5) categorically deposed that, tailoring shop of accused is on the
mezanine floor of shop of her father. She particularly stated that, on
23/07/2012, at around 02.30 p.m., the incident taken place. At that time
she was present in the shop and accused came from back side and touched
her lower part of
waist. Further she deposed that, she became angry and
asked about same to which accused replied that, “do what you want to
do”. Thereafter, she lodged the report (Exh.6).
14. The Investigating Officer A.P.I. Mr. Pravin Vilas Chavan in his
evidence (Exh.7) deposed that, on the information given by victim on
23/07/2017, he registered F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.363/2017, punishable
under section 354 (A) of I.P.C. He has carried out investigation, wherein he
recorded statement of witnesses. He further deposed that, during his
investigation it reveals that, accused outraged modesty of victim by
touching to back side of informant. Therefore, he sent charge-sheet to the
court.
15. Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Joshi for the State submits that, victim
categorically stated when alleged offence taken place and by what manner
the accused has committed the said offence. He further submits that, the
informant categorically stated that, accused touched to her body, which is
physical contact involving unwelcome sexual overtures, which is
punishable under section 354 (A) of I.P.C. Further, he submits that, the
Investigating Officer concluded that, accused had committed an offence.
-- 7 of 11 --
Judgment --8-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
The evidence of informant cannot be discarded. Her sole testimony is
sufficient for the base of conviction of accused. He further submits that,
the defence putforth by accused is not at all trustworthy. Therefore,
accused be punished.
16. Per contra, Ld. Advocate Mr. Kaushal Sharma for accused
submitted that, there is variance in the version of informant in the F.I.R.
and evidence deposed by her before the Court. Further, he submits that,
complaint (Exh.6) discloses that, Kiran Zaveri, who is uncle of informant
was present in the said shop at the time of incident but prosecution failed
to examine the said witness. He further submits that, there is dispute
between father of informant and accused in respect of shop and dispute is
subjudice in the Court and only with intention to evict from the tenanted
premises the false complaint has been lodged against accused.
17. Further, Ld. Advocate Mr. Kaushal Sharma for accused
submitted that, Investigating Officer did not visit to the spot of incident
and carried out panchnama nor he has recovered CC TV footage. Lastly, he
prayed that, accused be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
18. The complaint (Exh.6) shows that, at the relevant time uncle
of informant Kiran Zaveri was present in the shop, who sat on the left side
of counter. The suggestion has been put to informant that, mazenine floor
of shop belonging to Maya Zaveri and accused is tenant of Maya Zaveri
but said suggestion have been denied by the informant. However, during
cross examination the informant admitted that, the dispute is subjudice
between her father and Maya Zaveri in the Court and dispute is in respect
of the property. The charge-sheet contained one written complaint,
wherein the informant stated that accused is tenant of Maya Zaveri.
-- 8 of 11 --
Judgment --9-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
19. The informant (PW1) categorically deposed that, when she
was present in her shop, accused came from back side and touched her
lower-side of her waist. But complaint (Exh.6) contained that, at the
relevant time she was setting goods of shop by standing towards right
counter of the shop and accused, while going outside from the shop
touched her back side.
20. It is to be noted that, Investigating Officer has not drawn the
panchnama of the scene of offence but from the evidence of informant
(PW1) it appears that, there is single way available to go up on the
mazenine floor, which is located to the side of shop of informant. In these
context, I would like to state here that, in absence of panchnama of scene
of offence and the version stated by informant in her complaint and in her
deposition so far actual place of incident is not at all properly located.
21. Further, Kiran Zaveri, who alleged to have present at the spot
was best witness for the prosecution but said witness is not examined by
the prosecution. Investigating Officer admitted that, he has been visited to
spot of incident but not drawn panchnama. From the evidence of
informant (PW1) it appears that, the shop of accused is located at the
mazenine floor of the shop of father of informant, which is belonging to
Maya Zaveri and accused is tenant of said premises. The dispute between
father of informant and Maya Zavheri is going on. In such circumstances
and in absence of any independent witness the version of informant
cannot be accepted as it is.
22. Further, particularly intentionally touched by accused which
constitute physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit
sexual overtures are not reflected in the evidence of informant. Therefore,
-- 9 of 11 --
Judgment --10-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. In the result, I record my
findings to point No.1 is in the negative.
As to Point No.2:
23. In view of negative findings of point No.1 the accused is
entitled for acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order -
ORDER
i. The accused Bhagwanji Amarsingh Gohil is hereby
acquitted of the offences punishable under section 354
(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as per Sec. 248 (i) of
Criminal Procedure Code.
ii. Bail bonds of the accused are continued till appeal
period.
iii. Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court.
Date:15/12/2025.
SRD.
(A. B. Jadhav)
Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Date:15/12/2025.
Dictated on : 15/12/2025.
Transcribed on : 16/12/2025.
Signed on : 23/12/2025.
SRD
-- 10 of 11 --
Judgment --11-- C.C.No.307/PW/2019
C.N.R.NO.MHMM18-004158-2018 Maharashtra State Through Police Station-
Santacruz V/S. Bhagwanji
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that, the contents of this P.D.F. file judgment are same word for
word, as per original judgment.
Court Name Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Name of Stenographer Sandeep Rambhau Darekar.
Date of pronounce of judgment 15/12/2025.
Date of sign of judgment 23/12/2025.
Date of upload of judgment 23/12/2025.
-- 11 of 11 --