Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
MHMM180069752022 Received on : 22/05/2022
Registered on : 22/05/2022
Decided on : 15/10/2022
Duration : 00 Y. 04 M. 13 D.
Exh.No.- 11
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
09TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by K.H. Thombre)
( IN THE JAIL COURT )
JUDGMENT
(As per Section 355 of Code of Criminal Procedure)
a) The Serial number of the case : C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
b) The date of commission of
offence
: 16/05/2022
c) The name of the complainant if
any
: The State through Khar police
station. C.R.No.670/2022.
d) The name of the accused persons,
parentage and residence
: Ajay Dilip Salunkhe @ Ajju
Age – 21 years,
Occupation- Nil
R/o. Room No.243, Building
No.18, 4th Floor, near Chembur
Naka, Chembur, Mumbai
e) The offence complained of or
proved
: Under Section 392 of Indian Penal
Code
f) The plea of the accused and his
examination, if any
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
g) The Final Order : The accused is acquitted.
h) The date of such order : 15/10/2022
..2/-
-- 1 of 6 --
Judgment 2 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
=====================================================
Learned counsel for Prosecution: APP Smt.MF Pakajade for State
Ld. Counsel for Accused : Adv. Mr. P.P.Khot
=====================================================
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 15/10/2022)
1) The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section
392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short 'Code').
The case of prosecution in short is as under: -
2) As a routine on 16/05/2022 at about 6.45 a.m. informant left her
house for walking. At about 7.00 a.m. informant reached at the middle of Prem
Galli Road, behind Petiti School, Sherli Rajan Road, Sherli village, Khar(W),
Mumbai. One person was standing towards her left side and was starting his bike.
Informant went ahead towards right side. The person sat on the bike came from
behind and snatched golden chain by both the hands from the neck of informant
and ran away. The informant screamed. No one was there. Informant did not
get immediate help. After some time some persons came there for walking.
Informant narrated the incidence to those persons. Someone out of those persons
made phone to the police. Police came there. Informant explained the incidence
to the police. After taking medicine informant lodged the report to the Police
Station. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant offence was
registered vide Crime No.670/2022. The accused was arrested. After completion
of the investigation charge-sheet is filed against the accused.
3) Charge is framed against the accused at Exh.02. The contents of
the charge were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular in Jail
Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Plea of the accused
is recorded at (Exh.03 ) .
..3/-
-- 2 of 6 --
Judgment 3 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
4) The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses (P.W.No.1)
Shalini Santappa Pujari, informant at (Exh.04), (P.W.No.2) Vishwanath
Parshuram Sawant, pancha witness at (Exh.05-A), (P.W.No.3) Deepak Ramesh
Kharade, Investigation Officer at (Exh.09) and (P.W.No.4) Sachin Ramdas
Trimukhe, another Investigation Officer at (Exh.09-A).
5) The statement of the accused under section 313(1)(b) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the code) is recorded at (Exh.10). The
defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. Heard Ld.
APP and Ld. Advocate for the accused.
6) Considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, following
points arose for determination. Findings are recorded for reasons to follow.
Sr.No POINTS FINDINGS
1] Whether the prosecution proved that the
accused on 16/05/2022 at about 7.00 a.m. at
the middle of Prem Galli Road, behind Petiti
School, Sherli Rajan Road, Sherli village,
Khra(W), Mumbai committed theft of gold
chain of the informant by snatching the same
from her neck and in committing theft
voluntarily caused fear of instant hurt or
wrongful restrained to her and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code?
No.
2] What order? Accused is acquitted
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
7) Informant (P.W.1) Shalini Pujari deposed that when she was
walking on the road. One person came on two wheeler, snatched golden chain
from her neck and ran away. Though P.W.1 Shalini Pujari deposed that she
..4/-
-- 3 of 6 --
Judgment 4 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
lodged FIR vide Exh.05 failed to identify the accused as the same person who
snatched the golden chain from her neck.
8) To connect the accused with the commission of the offence
prosecution has examined (P.W.2) Vishwanath Sawant deposed that the place of
incidence was shown by the informant and one bike bearing No.MH-02-EA-
5469 was seized by the police parked at the side of the wall of Petiti School at
Sherli Rajan vide panchanama (Exh.06). It is further deposed by P.W.2
Vishwanath Sawant that accused was in the custody of the police and disclosed
that he sold golden chain at Bandra Lake and ready to show the money and the
place where he had kept it. The disclosure statement of the accused was
recorded by drawing panchanama(Exh.07). Then accused alongwith pancha and
Police Officer proceeded in a private vehicle. Accused taken them to the side of
Ram Mandir, Danda, Khar and taken out one plastic bag from the hut containing
sixty currency notes of Rs.500/-. These currency notes are seized and sealed by
the police by preparing panchanama(Exh.08). It is seen from the cross-
examination of (P.W.2) Vishwanath Sawant that he denied suggestion that
panchanama was prepared at the police station and being habitual pancha he
signed on it. The argument that the evidence of (P.W.2) Vishwanath Sawant is be
to discarded is not acceptable being habitual pancha he is deposing false about
disclosure statement and recovery of cash amount at the instance of the accused.
9) According to (P.W.4) Sachin Trimukhe, investigation of this
offence was received and further investigation was conducted by PSI Deepak
Kharade. According to (P.W.3) Deepak Kharade, he got secrete information on
25/05/2022 that one person is coming in a area of Khar Police Station connected
to this offence. He taken custody of the accused from the area of Khar Police
Station. Accused disclosed his name as Ajay Salunkhe. On 25/05/2022 accused
given disclosure statement that he has concealed cash and is ready to show the
place where he has concealed it under disclosure panchanama(Exh.07). Then
..5/-
-- 4 of 6 --
Judgment 5 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
accused taken them to Ram Mandir, Khardanda, Khar(W), Mumbai. Accused
taken out sixty currency notes of Rs.500/- each in a plastic bag from under the
wooden table which he seized and sealed vide panchanama(Exh.08). It is
admitted by (P.W.3) Deepak Kharade that the statement of the person to whom
accused sold the chain is not recorded by him.
10) The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
FIR is lodged on 16/05/2022 against unknown person. The accused is arrested
on a secrete information by (P.W.3) Deepak Kharade on 22/05/2022. There is a
gap of six days in between lodging of the FIR and arrest of the accused.
Incriminating statement that accused has committed theft of golden chain of
informant is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act ( for short
'Act'). The evidence as well as investigation is silent about the whereabouts of
the person from whom accused received cash in exchange of stolen golden chain.
The place from where the cash amount is seized is hut. No detail description of
the hut is given by any of the prosecution witness. The cash allegedly seized at
the instance of the accused is not establish as the amount received by the accused
by sale of stolen chain of informant. Accused has denied the recovery of cash at
his instance in his statement under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The evidence about seizure of cash at the instance of the accused does not
inspire confidence to believe that the prosecution witnesses are giving true
account of the recovery of the cash.
11) In establishing chain of circumstances it is not established that
where the stolen chain is gone. The property which is stolen is not recovered.
This evidence clearly establishes that the chain of circumstances by which
involvement of any other person than the accused can be ruled out, is not
established by the prosecution. In absence of cogent and substantive evidence
accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is held that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused
..6/-
-- 5 of 6 --
Judgment 6 C.C. No.1348/PW/2022
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly finding is recorded to Point No.1 in the
negative. Following order is passed.
ORDER
1) The accused Ajay Dilip Salunkhe @ Ajju is acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code vide Section 248(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2) The accused is in jail. He be released forthwith if, not required in
any other offence. Inform the Jail Authority accordingly.
3) The accused to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437(A)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jail Authority is directed to release the
accused on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and
to submit the report accordingly to this Court.
4) Seized property 60 currency notes of Rs.500/- be returned to the
informant after the appeal period.
5) Seized property Hero Honda Company motorcycle bearing
No.MH-02-EA-5469 be returned to its original owner after the appeal period.
6) The copy of the Judgment be forwarded to District Magistrate vide
Sec.365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further compliance.
7) Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court.
Date:-15/10/2022. (K.H.Thombre)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
09th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Delivered on: 15/10/2022
Dictated on : 15/10/2022
Typed on : 15/10/2022
Signed on : 15/10/2022
vnh
../-
-- 6 of 6 --