Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
MHMM190004362019
Form No.XXXII
Part 'A'
(Para 44 (I) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
J U D G M E N T
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SUJITKUMAR C. TAYDE)
(Date of Judgment: 4th January, 2024)
Case No.232/PS/2019
CNR No.MHMM190004362019
FIR/Crime No.96/2016
Police Station: Versova, Mumbai.
COMPLAINANT The State of Maharashtra
through the Station Incharge of
Versova Police Station, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned A.P.P. Smt. Seema Mokal
ACCUSED 1] Ashok Damodar More
Age 64 Years
Occupation Business,
R/o. Plot No.123,
Room No.104,
Prabhat Co.Op.Hou.Society,
Model Town, Sat Bangala,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 10 --
2 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
2] Anshuman Surendrasainya Bhosle,
Age 43 Years
Occupation Service,
R/o. Room No.104,
Swaraj, Model Town,
Sat Bangala,Andheri (W),
Mumbai.
3] Amay Balkrishna Ghag,
Age – 43 Years,
Occupation – Service,
R/o. Room No.18,
Swapna Sakar Building,
Model Town,
Sat Bangala,Andheri (W),
Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocate Ms. Ankita Sharma
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 15/01/2016
Date of FIR 10/03/2016
Date of chargesheet 08/01/2019
Date of framing of charges 08/01/2019
Date of commencement of
evidence
22/12/2023
Date of which judgment is
reserved
04/01/2024
Date of the judgment 04/01/2024
Accused Details
Rank of
the
accused
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offences
charged
with
Whether
acquitted or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 10 --
3 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1
2
3
Ashok
Damodar
More
Anshuma
n
Surendra
sainya
Bhosle
Amay
Balkrishn
a Ghag
02/05/2
016
13/12/2
018
13/12/2
018
02/05/20
16
13/12/20
18
13/12/20
18
143, 341,
323, 427,
504 and
506 of the
Indian
Penal
Code
do
do
Acquitted
do
do
No
do
do
No
do
do
Part 'C'
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
PW 1 Dattajirao Shamrao Desai Informant (Exh.No.05)
B. Defence witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 10 --
4 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
C. Court witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Sr.
No.
Nature of Exhibit Exhibit No.
Nil FIR 06
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 04/01/2024)
The accused No.1 to 3 stand prosecuted for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 143, 341, 323, 427,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. On 15/01/2016, at about 21.30 hrs., when the informant
Dattajirao Desai had been going to his house by his car, all the accused
persons stopped his car near Model Town area, Chacha Nehru Garden
Gate, Sat Bangala, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Thereafter, the accused
persons abused him and started to beat him. The accused persons also
made scratches on the car. Thus, being aggrieved by the acts
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 10 --
5 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
committed by the accused, the informant lodged the FIR against the
accused persons.
3. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant the
offence punishable under section 143, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused vide
Crime No.96/2016 in Police Station Versova.
4. The further investigation of the said crime was handed over
to Mr. Pravin Rakshe, PoliceSubInspector who recorded the statements
of the witnesses. Having completed the investigation, the chargesheet
came to be filed under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. against the accused
persons for having committed the offence punishable under Section
143, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Having secured the presence of the accused persons, all the
documents filed alongwith the chargesheet were supplied to the
accused under Section 207 of Cr. P.C.
6. The charge for the offence punishable under section 143,
341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was read over to
the accused. He did not plead guilty. Hence, the trial was conducted.
7. In the backdrop of the prosecution case and the evidence
placed on record, the following points are formulated for my
determination. I record my findings thereon in the light of the evidence
led by the prosecution as under:
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 10 --
6 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
15/01/2016 at about 21.30 hours on road
in front of Chacha Nehru Garden main gate,
Model Town, Sat Bangala, Andheri (W),
Mumbai, the accused no. 1 to 3 and other
unknown persons were the members of an
unlawful assembly that in prosecution of
their common object to commit offence?
Disproved
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused no.
1 to 3 and other unknown persons were
the members of an unlawful assembly that
in prosecution of their common object
wrongfully restrained the informant
Dattajirao Desai?
Disproved
3] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused no.
1 to 3 and other unknown persons were
the members of an unlawful assembly that
in prosecution of their common object
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant
with hand?
Disproved
4] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused no.
1 to 3 and other unknown persons were
the members of an unlawful assembly that
in prosecution of their common object
committed mischief by causing wrongful
damage i.e. Santro Mtor car bearing no.MH
04ED4936 of informant of more than
Rs.50/ ?
Disproved
5] Does the prosecution prove that on the Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 10 --
7 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
same date, place and time, the accused no.
1 to 3 and other unknown persons were
the members of an unlawful assembly that
in prosecution of their common object
intentionally insulted the informant by
using abusive words and thereby gave
provocation to him intending or knowing it
to be likely that such provocation will
cause him to commit any other offence ?
6] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused no.
1 to 3 and other unknown persons were
the members of an unlawful assembly that
in prosecution of their common object
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant and his son
Amol with intent to cause an alarm to
them?
Disproved
7] What order ? The accused
No.1 to 3 are
acquitted as per
the final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 6:
8. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
determination.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined the informant Dattajirao Shamrao Desai
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 10 --
8 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
(P.W.No.1). The case is pending since last about four years. In spite of
having ample opportunity, the prosecution did not examine another
witnesses. Hence, having regard to the pendency of the case and the
status of the accused, this case needs to be disposed of in the light of
evidence placed on record.
10. There is no incriminating evidence placed on record
against the accused persons. Hence, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Cr. P.C. is dispensed with.
11. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
12. The informant, Dattajirao Shamrao Desai (P.W.1) deposed
that he know the accused persons. According to his evidence in the
month of January, 2016 the fighting was going on near Chacha Nehru
Park and he went there to see it. He deposed that he fell down and
sustained injury. He further deposed that on the say of the public, he
lodged report against the accused persons. Thus, the informant has not
deposed a single word against the accused. On the other hand, while
facing the crossexamination he has specifically denied that the accused
caused him injury by fist and blow. Moreover, he deposed that he does
not now the contents of the FIR and the police had not recorded his
statement. In short, the prime witness did not support the prosecution.
13. In short, there is no iota of evidence placed on record
against the accused regarding the offence punishable under section
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 10 --
9 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
143, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover,
the informant stated on oath that the matter had been compromised
between him and the accused and he does not want to proceed further
with this matter.
14. In the present case the prosecution did not examine any
other witness except the informant. So also the spot panchanama and
arrest panchanama of the accused have not been proved. In the
absence of evidence of the investigating officer, the contradiction and
omission that occurred in the deposition of the informant remains
disproved and therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the
accused.
15. The sum and substance of the discussion noted about is
that there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the
accused. In short, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused. In other words the prosecution has
utterly failed to establish the material ingredients of Section 143, 341,
323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it can be held
that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the offence beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the benefit of doubt always goes in
favour of the accused. Therefore, the accused persons are liable to be
acquitted from the alleged offence for want of sufficient evidence.
Hence, I record my finding in negative for point No.1 to 6.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
pass the following order:
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 10 --
10 C.C.No.232/PS/2019
Exh.07
ORDER
1 The accused No.1, Ashok Damodar More, accused No.2,
Anshuman Surendrasainya Bhosle and accused No.3, Amay
Balkrishna Ghag are acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 143, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code vide Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 stand cancelled.
3 The accused No.1 to 3 are directed to execute P.R. Bond of
Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each vide Section
437–A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before the
higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect
of appeal are petition filed against this judgment.
4 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
5 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 04/01/2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 04/01/2024
Signed On: 04/01/2024
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 10 --