Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHMM18005481201812 Oct 2018
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 12 Oct 2018 · CNR MHMM180054812018

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment ..1.. C.C. No.660/PW/2018
Exh.
Received on : 23.04.2018
Decided on : 12.10.2018
Duration : 00 05 18
Y M D
CNR MHMM18005481 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.CHIEF METROPOITAN MAGISTRATE,
9TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF THE CR. P. C.
(a) Serial number of the case : 660/PW/2018
(b) Date of commission of the offence. : In between 09.03.2018 and
11.03.2018
(c) Name of the complainant, if any, : The State (Khar Police
Station, C.R.No.100/2018)
(d) Name of the accused person, his
parentage and residence
: Sameer Salim Shaikh, 29
yrs, R/at : Gulli No. 8, Zakir
Hussain Nagar, Govandi,
Mumbai.
(e) Offence complained of or proved. : U/Sections 379 of IPC
(f) Plea of the accused person and
his examination, if any
: Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Accused is acquitted
(h) Date of order : 12/10/2018
ADVOCATES:
For the State : Shri. Nerlikar , A.P. P.
For accused : Shri Patil
-- 1 of 4 --
Judgment ..2.. C.C. No.660/PW/2018
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 12th October, 2018)
1. Accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379
of IPC.
2. In support of case, prosecution examined in all three
witnesses namely informantAkhil Mohan (P.W.1) at Exh.5, panch
Krishna Hari Gobare (P.W.2) at Exh. 7 and Investigating Officer
Pandurang Babaso Lokar (P.W. 3) at Exh. 10. Prosecution also relied
on report lodged by informant (P.W.1) at Exh.6, Memorandum and
seizure panchanama Exhs. 08 and 09.
3. I have heard both sides at length. Now, I appreciate oral and
documentary evidence available on record.
4. Evidence of complainant Akhil (P.W.1), goes to show that on
the day of incident he parked his bike outside the apartment at Pali Hill,
Bandra and gone out of station for two days. When he came back, he
found his bike missing. He lodged report of theft of bike as per Exh.6.
This witness was not crossexamined by defence, therefore, prosecution
has proved theft of bike as per Exh.6.
5. Now, it has to see whether stolen bike was recovered from the
possession of accused. In this regard, evidence of panch witness
Krishna (P.W.2) and Investigating Officer Pandurang (P.W.3) goes to
show that as per confessional statement of accused bullet was
recovered. However, the evidence of Krishna (P.W.2) goes to show that
-- 2 of 4 --
Judgment ..3.. C.C. No.660/PW/2018
seized bullet was kept infront of graveyard, whereas Investigating
Officer Pandurnag (P.W. 3) deposed that accused produced bullet from
Govandi. Evidence of these witnesses in respect of seizure is
inconsistent with each other. Moreover, Krishna (P.W. 2) admitted
that he acted as witness in one or two cases. This means that his
evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration.
6. It is pertinent to note that in case no. 1160/PW/2018,
Investigating Officer Pandurang ( P.W. 3) claimed seizure of stolen
bike from the possession of accused. The complainant in that case,
deposed that after one month of the report, his friend found motor cycle
and he gave custody of motorcycle to police. In that case, Investigating
OfficerPandurang filed chargesheet on faulty investigation. Therefore,
his credibility is doubtful. On the basis of evidence of Pandurang
(P.W.3) and Krishna (P.W.2), it would unsafe to hold that property is
recovered from the possession of the accused. In the result, accused is
entitled for acquittal by following order :
ORDER
i] Accused Sameer Salim Shaikh is acquitted of the offence
punishable U/Secs. 379 of IPC of as per section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
ii] The accused shall submit fresh bail bonds as per Sec.437 (A) of
Cr. P. C.
iii] The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required
in any other case. Inform the jailor accordingly.
iv] Chargesheet shows that seized muddemal property i.e. Royal
Enfield Classic Bullet 500 CC is with police, it be returned to the
informant after appeal period is over, or supurtnama, if any, stands
cancelled.
-- 3 of 4 --
Judgment ..4.. C.C. No.660/PW/2018
v] Pronounced in open court.
Sd/
(S. K. Mungilwar)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Dictated on : 12.10.2018
Transcribed on : 12.10.2018
Signed on : 12.10.2018
lsb/
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.