Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
Received on :- 06/01/2018,
Registered on :- 06/01/2018,
Decided on :- 21/05/2024,
Duration :- 06 Y. 04 M. 15 D.
Exh. :- P-
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
RAILWAY COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY NILESH V. BANSAL)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
(a) The serial No. of the case; : 78/PS/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 20/06/2017
(c) The name of the
complainant (if any);
: The State ( Meghwadi Police Station
in C. R. No. 163/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person and her parentage
and residence;
: Tanvi Piyush Chitalia,
Age :- 27 Years, Occ. :- Service,
R/o. :- Flat No. 1002, 10th Floor,
Woodstock, Juhu, Plot No. 4, N. S.
Road, Juhu JVPD, Vileparle (West),
Mumbai
(e) The offences complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 279 and 338 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section
134 punishable under Section 187 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
(f) The plea of the accused and
her examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 21/05/2024,
-- 1 of 6 --
2 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. A. R. Khan, In-charge APP for the State.
Mr. Harish M. Shetty, Advocate for the accused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 21/05/2024)
1) The accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 134
punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2) In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that informant Wafa
Yusuf Khan has given F.I.R. at police station on 21/06/2017 that on
20/06/2017 at about 22.00 hours when she alongwith her niece Kaynat
Shaikh were walking, at that time one car bearing registration no. MH-02-
DW-3744 came in high speed and gave dash to Kaynat. Due to which
Kaynat sustained fracture injury to her left leg. After accident car driver
fled away without stopping on the spot of the incident. Hence, this F.I.R.
3) On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime no.
163/2017 came to be registered against the driver of offending motorcar.
Investigation of the said crime was started by Investigating Officer PSI
Prachiti Gadkari. During investigation it was revealed that accused was
driving her motorcar bearing no. MH-02-DW-3744 in high speed in
negligent manner and gave dash to Kaynat. Therefore, I.O. visited the
spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama in presence of panch
witnesses. He arrested the driver of offending motorcar (the accused).
During further investigation I.O. collected medical papers of Kaynat and
-- 2 of 6 --
3 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
report of motor vehicle accident. After completion of investigation, I.O.
filed charge-sheet.
4) The particulars of the offences were read-over and explained
to the accused. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution has examined two witnesses. As no incriminating evidence
came on record against the accused, her statement under 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure came to be dispensed with.
5) The points for determination alongwith my findings thereon
as under :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
drove motorcar bearing no. MH-02-DW-3744
on public way in rash or negligent manner as
to endanger human life or personal safety of
others ?
No
2] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
drove her motorcar bearing no. MH-02-DW-
3744 in rash or negligent manner and gave
dash to Kaynat and due to which she sustained
grievous injury to her leg ?
No
3] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
ran away from the spot of accident without
providing medical aid to the injured Kaynat
No
-- 3 of 6 --
4 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
and without giving information to police about
accident ?
4] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 TO 3 :-
6) Prosecution has examined informant Wafa Yusuf Khan alias
Wafa Murad Shaikh (P.W.1) at Exh.P-4. She deposed that her niece Kaynat
alongwith her walking on Income Tax Road at about 10.00 p.m. and at
that time one car gave dash to Kaynat. In the incident Kaynat sustained
grievous injury to her leg. After the incident the car driver fled away
without stopping on the spot of incident. She also deposed that she had
not seen registration number of offending motorcar. She filed F.I.R.
against accused, but she does not know it's contents. In cross-examination
the informant admitted that dispute is compromised between her and
accused and therefore, she does not want to proceed with the case.
7) Sharfuddin Shaikh (P.W.2) is a witness deposed at Exh.P-05
that he was driving his auto-rickshaw, at that time at about 10.30 p.m. he
received a call that his daughter met an accident and he does not know
anything more about the incident. The learned APP has filed pursis to
close evidence at Exh. 6. Other than these witnesses there is no witness
on record to depose about rashness or negligence on the part of accused
while driving the motorcycle, therefore statement under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
8) I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The case is more than 06 years old. The prosecution has failed to examine
any independent witness, I.O and medical officer. There is no evidence
on record to show that at the time of the accident the accused was riding
the offending motorcar. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to
connect the accused with the crime. The prosecution failed to prove that
at the time of the incident the accused was driving the offending motorcar
and the accident took place due to her rash or negligent driving. Hence, I
answer point nos. 1 to 3 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.4 :
9) The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer to
point no.4, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 134 punishable under Section 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act vide Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2 The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and she be set
at liberty.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 C. C. NO. 78 / PS / 2018
(Judgment)
3 The accused to execute P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one
solvent surety vide Section 437–A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for appearance before the higher court, if such
court issues notice to her for her appearance.
sd/-
Place :- Mumbai.
Date :- 21/05/2024.
(Nilesh V. Bansal)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 6 --