Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 324/PW/2018.
C/S filed on : 24/01/2018
Registered on: 24/01/2018
Decided on : 22/01/2025
Duration : Y 06 M 12 D 29
Exh. 11.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 324/PW/2018
(C.R.No. 323/2016)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-001565-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 324/PW/2018
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: On 10/05/2016
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State (Juhu Police Station in
C. R. No. 323/2016)
(Through Velanakanni Francis
Parera)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: Allwyn James D’silva,
Age : 34 years,
R/o. R.No.1, Bastav Parera
Chawl, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 354, 341 r/w 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 22/01/2025
-- 1 of 5 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 324/PW/2018.
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. N.N.Sapkale.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. Dubey.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under
Section 354, 341 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined only two witnesses. The evidence of PW1 Informant
Velankanni Francis Parera at Exh.5 and PW2 IO API Anand Nagral at
Exh.8. The statement of the accused u/Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C is recorded at
Exh.11 wherein he took defence of false implication in the case. Heard,
Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Advocate for the accused. Perused the oral
and documentary evidence brought on record.
3. In this back ground PW1 Informant Velankanni Francis
Parera deposed that, in the year 2016, she was working as receptionist
with Dr. Chokshi from 9.00 a.m. till 2.00 p.m. and with Dr. Ulhas
Shirodkar from 5.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and she was acquainted with
accused who is the son of her cousin sister Marka James Desilva. On
10/05/2016 after finishing her duty she was returning back to home at
about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. and when she came near her house, she saw
that, accused along-with his friend was standing on the road proceeding
towards her house. That time she asked the accused to excuse her,
however, the accused told her ‘ , py gV ’ and the accused caught her
-- 2 of 5 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 324/PW/2018.
left hand and pulled her due to which she got scared and his friends
were laughing at her and thereafter, she rescued her hand and ran away
towards her home.
4. Further she deposed that, as she was afraid, she had not
narrated anything to her mother and son in the night hours and on next
day she went to Juhu Police Station and filed written complaint against
the accused which she proved at Exh.6. After 5-6 days she was called by
police in the police station and FIR was registered on 27/05/2016
which she proved at Exh.7.
5. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, prior to filing complaint in present case she
also filed complaint against accused and her evidence was recorded in
the earlier case. She did not know whether accused is acquitted from
the said case. She admitted that, there is dispute between her family
and family of accused on account of property. The rest of the cross is
that of denial.
6. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW2 IO
API Anand Nagral deposed that, in the year 2016 PSI Sandip Chavan
registered one crime vide C.R.No. 323/2016 and said matter was
handed over to him for investigation after 2 days along-with copy of
FIR, complaint application of informant. The incident took place on
10/05/2016 at about 10.15 p.m. at Saijyot Bld., Irla, Dhobighat on the
allegation of holding hand of informant by accused Allwyn D’Silva and
his friend pushed informant. Thereafter he traced the accused who
applied for Anticipatory bail to the Hon’ble Sessions Court and
thereafter the accused was nominally arrested and released on bail and
-- 3 of 5 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 324/PW/2018.
he proved arrest panchnama at Exh.9. On completion of his
investigation, he found sufficient evidence against the accused and
therefore, he filed chargesheet.
7. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, he has not recorded statement of
independent witness as the incident took place at 10.15 hours in the
night. He has not traced the names of friend of accused. He did not
know whether prior to the incident informant lodged FIR against
accused and he is having knowledge that there is Civil dispute between
informant and accused and they are relatives. He did not know whether
informant was frequently filing complaint against accused. The rest of
the cross is that of denial.
8. Now at this stage on perusal of entire evidence adduced by
the prosecution, it appears that, informant and accused are acquainted
with each other prior to the incident as the accused is the son of her
cousin sister and except PW1 and PW2 the prosecution has not
examined any other independent or eye witness present on the spot at
the time of incident who has witnessed the incident. Moreover, it is also
sufficiently brought on record that, there is dispute between the family
of the informant and family of the accused on account of property and
Therefore, the defence of accused of false implication in the case on
account of property and grudge appears to be plausible.
9. PW2 is the investigating officer who deposed about the
investigation carried by him. In his cross-examination he deposed that,
he has not recorded statement of independent witness and he has not
traced the names of friend of the accused and he was having knowledge
-- 4 of 5 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 324/PW/2018.
that, there is civil dispute between informant and accused and they are
relatives. The prosecution has also not examined any panch witnesses.
Therefore, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 is not trustworthy and also
not sufficient to prove that the accused outraged the modesty of the
informant beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. Therefore, considering all these facts, it appears that, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt
of accused for the offence p/u/s. 354, 341 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the
result I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i Accused Allwyn James D’silva is acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii The accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Sd/-
(R. M. Shaikh)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
Date: 22/01/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 22/01/2025.
Transcribed on : 22/01/2025.
Signed on : 22/01/2025. d on : 19/10/2023
-- 5 of 5 --