Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
MHMM190006862018
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: 03rd February, 2024)
Case No.275/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190006862018
FIR/Crime No.175/2017
Police Station: Amboli, Mumbai.
COMPLAINANT The State of Maharashtra
through the Station Incharge of
Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned A.P.P. Smt. Atiya Shaikh
ACCUSED Jinesh Dhirubhai Lakhani,
Age – 50 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
Flat No.1501, Silver Arch Building,
B/29, Lokhandwala,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocate Shri Alok Kumar
Srivastav
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 9 --
2 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 26/05/2017
Date of FIR 26/05/2017
Date of chargesheet 22/01/2018
Date of framing of charges 19/09/2022
Date of commencement of
evidence
03/02/2024
Date of which judgment is
reserved
03/02/2024
Date of the judgment 03/02/2024
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
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1 Jinesh
Dhirubhai
Lakhani
02/08/20
17
02/08/2017 354, 509,
323, 504,
506 r/w.
34 of
the
Indian
Penal
Code
Acquitted No No
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 9 --
3 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
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 Navkiran Tarsem Singh
Hundal
Informant (Exh.No.4)
B. Defence witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
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 05
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 9 --
4 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 03/02/2024)
The accused stands prosecuted for having committed the
offence punishable under Section 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code .
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. On 26/04/2017 at about 21.20 hrs., near Silver Arch
Building, Shastri Nagar, Andheri, the accused abused the informant
Navkiran Hundal without any caused and when the informant asked the
accused and the person who accompanied him, the accused caught hold
her right hand and abused in filthy language.
3. Being aggrieved by the criminal acts committed by the
accused, the informant lodged the report against the accused. On the
basis of the report lodged by the informant the offence punishable
under section 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code came to be registered against the accused vide Crime
No.175/2017 in Police Station Amboli.
4. The further investigation of the said crime was handed over
to Shri. Pramod Kate, 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 for
having committed the offence punishable under Section 354, 509, 323,
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 9 --
5 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Having secured the presence of the accused, 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 354,
509, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was read over to
the accused. He did not plead guilty. Hence, the trial was conducted.
7. At the outset, for want of incriminating evidence against
the accused, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.
is dispensed with.
8. 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:
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that
26/05/2017 at about 21.20 hrs at 21/03,
Silver Arch Building Compound, Shastri
Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai, the accused
along with absconding unknown person
used criminal force to informant Navkiran
Tarsemsingh Hundle i.e. by pinching her
hand, pushed her and abused herewith
intent to outrage her modesty by such
criminal force and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 354 r/w.
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 9 --
6 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
34 of the Indian Penal Code?
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused
along with absconding unknown person
intending to insult the modesty of the
informant uttered obscene words by
abusing her in filthy language intending
that same shall be heard by the informant
and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 509 r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
3] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused
along with absconding unknown person
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant by
caught hold her hand and pushed her and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code?
Disproved
4] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, the accused
along with absconding unknown person by
abusing her and thereby gave provocation
to her intending or knowing it to be likely
that such provocation will cause her to
break public peace and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 504
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
5] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, accused along
with absconding unknown person
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant with intent to
cause an alarm to her and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 9 --
7 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
Section 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code?
6] What order ? The accused is
acquitted as per
the final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 5 :
9. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
determination.
10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined the informant, Navkiran Hundal (P.W.No.1). The
case is pending since last about five years. In spite of having ample
opportunity, the prosecution did not examine another witnesses. Hence,
having regard to the pendency of the case, this case needs to be
disposed of in the light of evidence placed on record.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code, prosecution
has to prove the following ingredients
i] The women was assaulted or subjected to use of assault
criminal force on her;
ii] The intention of the accused was to outrage her modesty; and
iii] The accused knew that her modesty will be outraged thereby.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 9 --
8 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
12. Having gone through the record, I heard the learned
advocates for both the sides.
13. In fact, the informant/complainant, Navkiran Hundal
(P.W.1) deposed that she know the accused. According to her evidence,
the accused and another person misbehaved with her and therefore, she
lodged the report against the accused. Thus, it appears that no
incriminating evidence was placed on record to prove the offence
punishable under section 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, while facing the cross
examination conducted by the accused, she categorically admitted the
fact that the accused had filed a case against her and both the cases
have been settled. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that the
informant/complainant did not support the prosecution to prove the
charge levelled against the accused.
14. In the present case on hand, the prosecution did not
examine another victim and eye witnesses. So also the prosecution did
not prove the spot of incident. There are material contradiction and
omission in the evidence adduced by the informant/complainant. The
prosecution did not examine the investigating officer to remove such
contradiction and omission. Thus, the evidence placed on record falls
short to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
such circumstances, I have no hesitation to record my finding in
negative for points no. 1 to 5.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 9 --
9 C.C.No.275/PW/2018
Exh.06
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused Jinesh Dhirubhai Lakhani is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Section 354, 509, 323, 504, 506
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
3 The seized muddemal property i.e. pen drive which was shown
in the chargesheet be destroyed in accordance with law after
the appeal period is over.
4 The accused is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) 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.
5 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
6 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 03.02.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 03.02.2024
Signed On: 03.02.2024
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 9 --