Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
C/S filed on : 08/01/2018
Registered on : 08/01/2018
Decided on : 12/02/2026
Duration : 08 Y 01 M 04 D
Exh. 9.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. No. 94/PW/2018 (C.R.No. 104/2017)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-000185-2018)
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
D.N.Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. ……… Informant.
V/s.
1. Urmila Jitendra Waghela,
Age : 40 Yrs.
2. Deepika Chandubhai Solanki,
Age : 32 Yrs.
Both R.No. R.No. 205, Near Ram
Mandir, Juhu Galli, Andheri (W),
Mumbai. ………. Accused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ld. APP for State : Shri. Shaikh
The Ld. Advocate for accused : Shri. Mangaonkar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 1 of 8 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
PART-B
Date of Offence 17/02/2017
Date of FIR 19/02/2017
Date of Charge-sheet 08/01/2018
Date of Framing Charge 26/04/2024
Date of commencement of evidence 03/07/2024
Date of which Judgment is reserved 12/02/2026
Date of Judgment 12/02/2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any. ---
Accused Details
Sr.
No
.
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sente
nce
Impos
ed
Period of
Detention
Undergon
e during
Trial for
purpose
of Section
428
Cr.P.C.
1 Urmila
Jitendra
Waghela
28/04/2017 28/04/2017
S. 324
r/w 34 of
IPC
Acquitted ----- -----
2 Deepika
Chandubhai
Solanki
28/04/2017 28/04/2017 Acquitted ----- -----
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 12/02/2026)
Accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
-- 2 of 8 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
Facts of the prosecution case in short are as under :
2. On 19/02/2017 police station D.N.Nagar has recorded FIR
No. 104 of 2017 on the report of informant Jitendra Waghela that
accused have caused hurt to his son namely Sahil by hot spoon on his
left leg due to which he sustained injury. API Raju Chavan investigated
the crime wherein he prepared spot panchnama, collected injury
certificate, recorded statement of witnesses, arrested accused and
concluded investigation by presenting chargesheet.
3. Accused were summoned and the charge was read over and
explained to them. However, they did not plead guilty. Their plea of
innocence was recorded on 26/04/2024. During trial prosecution has
recorded testimony of informant Jitendra Govind Waghela at Exh.5. As
there was no incriminating circumstances against accused, their
statement u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
4. Heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Advocate for
accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence brought on record.
5. On the basis of evidence of witness examined by the
prosecution and arguments submitted by both sides, following points
for determination arose for my consideration. I have recorded my
findings to them along with my findings thereon as under :-
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on No
-- 3 of 8 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
17/02/2017 at about 11.00 hours at R.No.
205, Near Ram Mandir, Juhu Galli, Andheri
(W), Mumbai, in furtherance of your common
intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the son
of the informant namely Sahil by hot spoon
on his left leg, used as weapon of offence, is
likely to cause death ?
2] What order ? Accused are
acquitted
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 :-
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has relied only upon the testimony of informant. The
accused and the informant are related to each other. The informant
Jitendra was married to Amenda. Then he married to accused No.1
Urmila. The accused No.2 Deepika is Urmila’s sister and Jignesh is their
brother. Sahil is the son of Jitendra and Urmila. He has stated that he
had quarrel with Jignesh and Urmila. He has further stated that on
18/02/2017 at about 6.00 p.m. Urmila has given hot spoon burns to
Sahil at his hands and legs while Deepika had caught hold of Sahil at
that time. Sahil received burnt injuries and he was treated at Cooper
Hospital. These facts were narrated to him by his mother and therefore,
he lodged the report( Exh.6). However, in his cross examination he has
stated that these facts were mentioned by him out of misunderstanding
and no such incident took place. He has also stated that there is
settlement between him and accused Nos. 1 and 2. He is co-habiting
-- 4 of 8 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
with accused No.1 and he do not want to proceed with the case.
7. The testimony of the informant reflects that he was not
present at home when the incident took place and he came to know
about the same from his mother who took the injured to the hospital.
The injured victim Sahil is not examined the prosecution. So also the
mother of the informant has neither cited as witness nor did the
prosecution has called her as witness.
8. Accused have not disputed spot panchanama and injury
certificate. It means that it is undisputed that son of the informant
sustained injury at R.No. 205, Near Ram Mandir, Juhu Galli, Andheri
(W), Mumbai. So also he admitted in his cross that whatever statements
he has made against accused in his examination-in-chief were
mentioned out of his misunderstanding and no such incident had taken
place and he has filed the pursis at Exh.8 to that effect. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences
p/u/s. 324 r/w 34 of the IPC. As such, I answer point No. 1 in the
negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :
9. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, accused are entitled to be acquitted. In the result, in answer
to point No. 2, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 Accused No. 1. Urmila Jitendra Waghela and accused No.2. Deepika
-- 5 of 8 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
Chandubhai Solanki are acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and they be set at liberty.
3 Each accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/- under Section
437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mumbai.
Date :- 12/02/2026.
Dictated on : 12/02/2026.
Transcribed on : 12/02/2026.
Signed on : 12/02/2026.
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 8 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
PART-C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE/ COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW1 Jitendra Govind Waghela (Exh.5) Informant
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
S.N Exh. No. Description
1 Exh.6 FIR
B. Defence :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Exh.8 Compromise Pursis
-- 7 of 8 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 94/PW/2018
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
D. Material Objects :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 -- Nil
Mumbai. (S.G.Agrawal)
Date :- 12/02/2026. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --