Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
MHMM190026472018
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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SUJITKUMAR C. TAYDE)
(Date of Judgment: 10th July, 2024)
Case No. 673/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190026472018
FIR/Crime No. 53/2017
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. Ajaypal Harikishan Singh.
Age – 42 years,
Occupation – Nil,
2. Smt. Basant Harikishan Singh,
(Dead)
(The case is abated against accused
no.2)
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 13 --
2 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocate Mr. Shyamdhar
Yadav.
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 24/02/2016 to 16/03/2016
Date of FIR 16/02/2017
Date of chargesheet 20/01/2018
Date of framing of charges 08/10/2018
Date of commencement of
evidence
12/03/2021
Date of which judgment is
reserved
10/07/2024
Date of the judgment 10/07/2024
Accused Details
Rank of
the
accuse
d
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offen
ces
charg
ed
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1 Ajaypal
Harikishan
Singh
05/12/2017 05/12/2017 498
(A)
r/w.
34
of the
Indian
Penal
Code
Acquitted No No
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 13 --
3 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
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)
P.W.1 Manmit Kaur Ajaypal
Singh.
Informant (Exh.No.05)
P.W.2 Ravindarsingh Pritamsingh
Bhatiya.
Witness (Exh.No.07)
P.W.3 Amarjit Ravindra Singh
Kaur.
Witness (Exh. No. 08)
P.W.4 Mansingh Sambhaji Patil. Investigating officer (Exh. No. 09)
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
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 13 --
4 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
LIST OF PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Sr.
No.
Nature of Exhibit Exhibit No.
Nil FIR 06
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 10.07.2024)
The accused No.1 and 2 stand prosecuted for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. The informant namely Mrs. Manmit Kaur got married with
the accused no.1 on 24/10/2015 as per the rites and customs prevailed
in Sikh Community. The accused no.2 was motherinlaw of the
informant.
3. After having got married with the accused no.1, the
informant started to cohabit with the accused no.1 and 2. Within a
week after performing the marriage, the accused no. 2 started to ill
treat the informant. The accused no. 2 used to instigate to the accused
no. 1 to make quarrel with the informant. She did not allow the
informant to take meal and used to raise quarrels with the informant on
trifle grounds. She caused mental agony to the informant by saying
that the informant played black magic upon her son (Accused no.1).
Being over powered by the atrocities committed by the accused no. 2,
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 13 --
5 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
the informant went to her parent's house and she narrated the incident.
The father of the informant gave understanding to the accused persons
and thereafter the informant came to her matrimonial house. But
lateron, the accused no. 2 again started to abuse the informant. Thus,
the informant was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused
persons and therefore, she lodged the report against the accused
persons on 16/02/2017. On the basis of the report, the offence
punishable U/s. 498A and 34 of IPC was registered against the accused
persons in the police station Versova vide crime no. 53/2017.
4. The further investigation of the said crime was carried out
by Shri. Mansingh Patil who was working on the post of PoliceSub
Inspector at the relevant time in Police Station Versova. He recorded
the statements of the witnesses. Having completed the investigation, the
final report came to be filed against the accused no.1 and 2 under
section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence
punishable under section 498 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
5. Having secured the presence of the accused, all the
documents filed alongwith the chargesheet were supplied to the
accused persons under Section 207 of Cr. P.C.
6. After considering the material available on record, the
learned predecessor of this Court framed the charge against accused
no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 498 (A) r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over to the accused no.1 and 2
in their vernacular. They did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 13 --
6 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
7. During the pendency of trial, the accused no. 2 passed away and
therefore, the trial was continued against the accused no. 1 only.
8. In view of the incriminating evidence placed on record against the
accused No. 1, his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. The accused No.1 submitted that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. According to him, the informant filed
this false case against them under the influence of her father.
9. 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.
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that accused no.
1 being the husband of informant Manmit
Kaur and accused no.2 being motherinlaw
of the informant, in furtherance of their
common intention, in between the period
24/02/2016 to 16/03/2016, at 31,
Shantiniketan, Seven Bungalow, Andheri
(W), Mumbai subjected the informant to
cruelty i.e. physical and mental torture to
fulfill their demand of dowry, and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 498 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code?
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 13 --
7 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
2] What order ? The accused
No.1 is
acquitted as per
final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1:
10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined following witnesses:
SR.
NO.
NAME OF WITNESS KIND OF
WITNESS
EXHIBIT
NO.
1] Mrs. Manmit Kaur Informant
(P.W.No.1)
P05
2] Mr. Ravindar Singh Pritam
Singh Bhatiya.
Witness
(P.W.No.2)
P07
3] Mrs. Amarjit Ravindra
Singh Kaur.
Witness
(P.W. 3)
P08
4] Mr. Mansingh Sambhaji
Patil.
Investigating
officer
(P.W. 4)
P09
11. The learned APP, Smt. Seema Mokal vehemently argued
that the prosecution has succeeded to establish the ingredients of
section 498 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, according
to her, the accused is liable to be convicted for the said offence.
12. Per contra, Mr. Shyamdhar Yadav, the learned advocate for
the accused in his well search argument submitted that this case is
nothing but the upshot of revenge. According to him, the prosecution
utterly failed to prove the cruelty as contemplated under section 498
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 13 --
8 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
(A) of Indian Penal Code. Eventually, he prayed to acquit the accused
from this case.
13. Before embarking upon the conclusion, let us have a glance
at the essential ingredients of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
These ingredients are as follows:
a] A woman was married;
b] She was submitted to cruelty;
c] Such cruelty consisted in
i) any unlawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb
or health whether mental or physical;
ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet
unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account
of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the
unlawful demand;
iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or
any relation or her husband
14. In the case of Kishanlal Vs Union of India reported in
1994 Cr.LJ 3432 (P & H) (FB), the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court held that in order to establish 'cruelty', the prosecution has to
establish, firstly, the willful conduct of the offender; secondly, that the
nature of such conduct was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb.
15. Keeping in mind the ingredients of section 498 (A) of
Indian Penal Code and the elaborated definition of 'cruelty', I proceed to
make the scrutiny to the evidence.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 13 --
9 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
16. The informant, Smt. Manmit Kaur (P.W.1) deposed that
she got married with accused no.1 on 24/10/2015 and the accused no.2
was her motherinlaw. In fact, the relations between the informant
and accused persons are not disputed.
17. According to the evidence of the informant, when she went
to cohabit with the accused no. 1 and 2, her motherinlaw i.e. accused
no. 2 used to say that she played black magic upon her son (accused no.
1) and the accused no. 2 started to illtreat her. The informant further
testified that when she called her father to settle the dispute, the
accused no. 2 did not allow her father. The informant deposed that the
accused no.2 asked the informant to deliver the key of cupboards where
the informant had kept her jewelery and documents. As per the
evidence of the informant, the accused no. 2 threatened her and caused
mental harassment. While facing the crossexamination, this material
witness has specifically deposed that she did not produce any medical
document. In such circumstances, for want of relevant documentary
evidence, it is hard to believe that the informant sustained mental
agony.
18. In the present case on hand, the prosecution examined the father
and mother of the informant as P.W. No. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively. In
fact, these two witnesses come within the ambit of the interested
witnesses and, therefore, their evidence must be supported by another
reliable evidence.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 13 --
10 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
19. Having gone through the evidence of these two witnesses, it
appears that these both witnesses leveled allegations against the
accused no. 2 interalia deposing that the accused no. 2 used to say the
informant that she played black magic on the accused no. 1. According
to the evidence of the both witnesses, the accused no. 2 did not allow
the informant to eat meal and she tortured the informant.
20. After making the scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the
informant, her father and mother, it appears that there is no
incriminating evidence placed on record against the accused no. 1. In
the present case on hand, the informant has not deposed that there was
collusion between the accused no. 1 and 2 and the both accused
subjected her to cruelty. The only grievance put forward by the
informant is against the accused no. 2 who is no more today. In such
circumstances, it can be held that the accused no. 1 might have been
dragged in this case on the ground that her husband (accused no. 1)
lived with the accused no. 2.
21. It would not be out of place to mention here that while facing
the crossexamination, the mother of the informant (P.W. 3) deposed
that they had given gifts to the informant in her marriage as per their
free will. It is pertinent to note here that none of the prosecution
witnesses deposed that the accused no. 1 illtreated the informant on
the ground of dowry. Thus, it can be inferred that the informant was
not subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused no. 1.
22. In the present case on hand, the informant deposed that
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 13 --
11 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
the accused used to abuse her. However, she has not stated on oath
whether the alleged beating and harassment was with view to force her
to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life or
limb. In the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sarla
Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 1990
Cr.LJ 407 is squarely applicable. In this case law, the Hon'ble High
Court held that unless it is conclusively established that the bearing and
harassment was with view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill
legal demands of the husband and inlaws, the provisions of section 498
(A) of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted to make out the case of
cruelty. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the citation supra, I
have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the cruelty as contemplated under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal
Code.
23. It is needless to say here that mere deposing about the
assault and abuses will not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
accused under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. I am fortified with
my opinion in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court, in the case of Nanasaheb Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra
(Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2018 Judgment dated 06/11/2023),
wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that mere use of the word
regarding ill treatment or cruelty will not be sufficient requirement to
prove an offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal
Code.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 11 of 13 --
12 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
24. The investigate officer, Mansingh Patil (P.W. 4) deposed
that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and filed the charge
sheet. In fact, during the course of crossexamination, the I.O. (P.W. 4)
admitted that he never visited the place of incident. Moreover, the spot
panchanama is not filed along with the chargesheet. Thus, it transpires
that the investigation of this case is defective.
25. Having gone through the FIR lodged by the informant, it
appears that the last alleged incident occurred on 16/03/2016. But the
FIR came to be filed against the accused persons on 16/02/2017. Thus,
it appears that there is delay of about one year in lodging the FIR. The
prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the said delay. In such
circumstances, it can be inferred that the accused might have been
roped into this matter after thoughts.
26. In the backdrop of the discussion noted above, I have come
to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the
material ingredients of section 498 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code
beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, I record my finding in negative
for point no.1.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused no.1, Mr. Ajaypal Harikishan Singh is acquitted of
the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A) r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 12 of 13 --
13 C.C.No.673/PW/2018
Exh. 11
Procedure.
2 The bail bonds furnished by the accused person stand
cancelled.
3 The accused no.1 is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.5,000/
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) along with one surety in the like
amount 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 or petition filed against this
judgment.
4 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
5 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 10/07/2024 Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Typed On: 10/07/2024
Signed On: 10/07/2024
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
J.M.F.C, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 13 of 13 --