Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
Received on : 20 02 2019
Registered on : 20 02 2019
Decided on : 24 01 2022
Duration : D M Y
: 04 11 02
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
63RD COURT, ANDHERI
(Presided Over by : Smt. S.A.R. Sayed)
C.C. No.694/PW/2019
EXH. NO. 22
The State of Maharashtra,
(Through the officer in-charge of
Sahar Police Station, Mumbai) ….. Prosecution
Versus
Yashwant Ashok Suranje
Age : 34 years,
R/at : Kalpvruksha Society,
Ram Nagar-01, Dug Line,
Amrutnagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai. ….. Accused
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the State : A.P.P. Shri. Shah
For accused : Adv. Shri. Imran Shaikh /
Adv. Shri. Akbar Pindara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 24/01/2022)
1. Accused stands prosecuted for commission of offences
punishable under Sections-509, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short I.P.C.).
-- 1 of 10 --
2 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
2. The prosecution case is as follows :
On 10/11/2018 at around 02.00 a.m. Informant Sameer
Hiru Sahani’s flight landed at Mumbai International Airport from Hong
Kong. He was with his parents. He booked OLA Prime Cab at around
03.00 a.m. from his mobile. He received phone call from the driver of
OLA Cab. Accused was the driver. He informed his location as Parking
Level-7. He and his parents boarded OLA cab. On the pretext of
keeping luggage bags in the dickey, accused raised quarrel with them.
Considering odd hours at night informant paid no heed to him. Cab
started towards Bandra. AC in the cab was off. Informant asked
accused to raise the AC high. On that accused told “pqipki cSBks] xkMh
esjk gS] eS ns[kaqxk D;k djusdk gS”. Informant apprised accused that they
are suffocating. Accused hurled abusive words against his mother by
saying that “pqipki cSB gjketknh”. Informant asked him the reason of
such kind of behaviour, on that he stopped the vehicle. He denied to
proceed ahead and started quarreling with them. He also hurled
abusive words like “eknjpksn rq esjs dks fl[kk,xk D;k\ D;k djusdk gS\ pqi
pki cSB ugh rks eS rqEgs ns[k yqWxk”. He also threatened the informant.
Informant called the police. It was late at night, so he sent his parents
at home in another cab. He came to the police station and lodged
police report (Exh.7) against the accused.
3. On the information received by the informant police
registered Crime No.343/2018 under Sections-509, 506, 504 of I.P.C.
The investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Shri. Jadhav. He recorded
statements of witnesses. Arrested accused. On completion of his
investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
-- 2 of 10 --
3 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
4. The charge came to be framed vide (Exh.2) for offences
punishable under Sections-509, 506, 504 of I.P.C. Accused pleaded at
(Exh.3) not guilty. In his statement vide (Exh.20) under section 313 (1)
(b) of Cr. P. C. he has taken the defence of total denial.
5. Considering entire evidence on record and after hearing Ld.
A.P.P. Shri. Shah for the State and Ld. Adv. Shri. Akbar Pindara for
accused following points arise for my consideration and I have recorded
my findings against each of them :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the prosecution proves that, accused used
abusive words intending to insult the modesty of
informant’s mother ? Yes
2. Whether the prosecution further proves that,
accused committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant and his parents ? Yes
3. Whether the prosecution further proves that,
accused intentionally insulted informant and his
parents with intent to provoke breach of peace ? Yes
4. What Order? As per final
order.
: REASONS :
6. Prosecution examined following witnesses :
Sr. No. Name of Witness Exhibit Status
1 Sameer Hiru Sahani 6 Informant
2 Jyoti Hiru Sahani 8 Informant’s Mother
3 Hiru Tuljaram Sahani 9 Informant’s Father
4 Shri. Hegde 12 Assistant Manager of
OLA company
5 PSI Shri. Jadhav 15 Investigating Officer
-- 3 of 10 --
4 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
7. Prosecution relied upon following documentary evidence :
Sr. No. Documents Exhibit
1 Police Report 7
2 Letter issued by OLA Company to Police
Station
13
3 Letter sent by Investigating Officer to OLA
Company through email.
17
4 Application for Investigating Officer for
recording Statement of Jyoti Sahani (P.W.2)
under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
18
5 Statement of Jyoti Sahani (P.W.2) under
Section 164 of Cr. P.C.
19
8. Defence has not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence. Accused has filed written notes of arguments (Exh.21) and
relied upon the decisions in the following cases :
(i) Narender Kumar V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) [Criminal Appeal
No.2066-67 of 2009] wherein it is held that, accused must be protected
against false implications. Settled legal position is discussed.
(ii) Abbas Ahmad Choudhary V/s. State of Assam [Criminal Appeal
No.950 of 2004] wherein it is held that, in rape cases statement of
prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but at the same time
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Settled
legal position is discussed.
9. AS TO POINT NOS.1 to 3 :
According to prosecution case informant (P.W.1), his
mother Jyoti Hiru Sahani (P.W.2) and his father Hiru Tuljaram Sahani
(P.W.3) are ocular witnesses. Therefore, corroboration in their evidence
is of utmost importance. In the light of said background I will
appreciate evidence on record.
-- 4 of 10 --
5 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
10 Informant (P.W.1), his mother Jyoti (P.W.2) and father Hiru
(P.W.3) deposed in-consonance with each other. They have categorically
stated that, they arrived at around 03.00 a.m. at Mumbai International
Airport from Hong Kong. They booked OLA cab. Accused was the
driver of the cab. They started towards Bandra. AC in the cab was not
working, windows were closed, so informant asked accused to switch
on the AC. They all were feeling suffocated. On that accused started
hurling abusive words against informant (P.W.1) and his mother (P.W.2).
Informant (P.W.1) categorically deposed exact abusive words like
“eknjpksn rq esjs dks fl[kk,xk D;k djuk gS\ xkMh esjh gS] eS ns[kqxk D;k djuk
gS”. Accused hurled abusive words like “pqipki cSB gjketknh] eS ns[kqaxk
D;k djuk gS” against his mother Jyoti (P.W.2). She also deposed in the
same manner, whereas she specifically stated abusive words like “pqipki
cSB gjketknh] jaMh lkyh” hurled against her. She testified abusive words
like “eknjpksn] pqi cSB rq eq>s fl[kk,xk D;k djuk gS\ eS ns[k yqaqxk D;k
djuk gS” hurled against informant (P.W.1). Hiru (P.W.3) stated same
incident narrated by both the witnesses. Jyoti (P.W.2) and Hiru (P.W.3)
further testified that, on 13/04/2019 accused visited their residence
with his wife, daughter and friend with an approach to withdraw the
present case.
11. It is the defence raised that, informant (P.W.1) and his
parents were having huge/ big hand bags and luggage bags with them.
OLA cab was small car. So also informant (P.W.1) asked accused to lift
luggage bags and place them in the dicky. On that exchange of hot
words took place between informant (P.W.1) and accused. Informant
(P.W.1) disclosed his identity as an advocate. He humiliated, insulted
and threatened the accused. But all ocular witnesses firmly denied to
all these suggestions.
-- 5 of 10 --
6 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
12. It can be seen from evidence of informant (P.W.1), Jyoti
(P.W.2) and Hiru (P.W.3) that, their evidence is exactly inconsonance
with each other. There are no material contradictions and omissions in
their evidence. They have categorically narrated entire evidence,
specific abusive words and exact language in which those words were
hurled by the accused against them. Furthermore, the version of Jyoti
(P.W.2) is corroborated to her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
(Exh.19). Presence of accused and OLA cab in question is also not
denied by the accused. Defence has not been able to bring on record
anything to show as to why informant (P.W.1) and his old age parents
would falsely implicate an unknown cab driver at midnight.
13. Shri. Hegde (P.W.4) is Assistant Manager in OLA Company.
He testified that, on 17/11/2018 litigation department received an
email from police station in respect of vehicle bearing registration
No.MH-03-CP-2909. He sent reply to said email vide letter (Exh.13).
On 10/11/2018 at around 02.55 informant (P.W.1) booked OLA Cab,
accused was its driver. Thus, presence of accused at the place of
incident is corroborated by Assistant Manager of OLA company.
Therefore, there remains no ambiguity about presence of accused at the
place of incident.
14. Investigating Officer PSI Shri. Jadhav (P.W.5) deposed at
(Exh.15) that, on 10/11/2018 he was present at the police station. He
was on night duty as Police Station Officer. At around 03.10 a.m.
informant (P.W.1) came to the police station and lodged police report
(Exh.7). He recorded statement of witnesses, arrested accused.
Dispatch letter (Exh.17) to OLA company. He received reply from OLA
Company (Exh.13). Statement of Jyoti (P.W.2) under section 164 of Cr.
-- 6 of 10 --
7 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
P.C. (Exh.19) was recorded. After completion of investigation, he filed
charge-sheet.
15. Investigating officer is formal witness. He collected
evidence after occurrence of incident and deposed on the basis of
investigation conducted by him. Therefore, his evidence is not
appreciated at length.
16. It is seen from above evidence that, testimonies of all
ocular witnesses is consistent throughout. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve their version. Defence has not been able to shake their
trustworthiness. They all have firmly with stood the test of cross-
examination. Their oral evidence inspire confidence.
17. As per police report (Exh.7) incident occurred on
10/11/2018 at around 02.00 a.m. The FIR was lodged on 10/11/2018
at around 04.40 a.m. Thus, there is prompt lodging of FIR. The same
corroborates with the version of informant (P.W.1) and his parents.
Accused had an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances in
his statement of 313 of Cr. P.C. However, general defence of false case
and total denial is taken. Defence that informant (P.W.1) being advocate
tried to pressurize and humiliate accused has no force because the
incident occurred during odd hours at night when the informant (P.W.1)
arrived at the airport with his old age parents and they intended to
reach home. Furthermore, admission given by Jyoti (P.W.2) and Hiru
(P.W.3) that, accused came to their residence with an approach to
withdraw the present case is nothing but threat to senior citizens. Thus,
none of these arguments advanced by defence are good enough to
throw out entire prosecution case.
-- 7 of 10 --
8 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
18. Prosecution has proved following facts beyond the shadow
of reasonable doubts.
((i)) Accused was driving OLA cab in question at the relevant time.
((ii)) Presence of accused at the incident spot during the course of
entire incident.
((iii)) Jyoti (P.W.2) being a woman abusive words were used to insult
her modesty.
((iv)) Criminal intimidation was committed against informant and his
parents.
((v)) Accused insulted informant and his parents by hurling abusive
words.
Standard of proof required to prove essential ingredients of offences
punishable under Sections-509, 506, 504 of IPC levelled against
accused are fulfilled beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
“Accordingly, I answer Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative”.
AS TO POINT NO.4 :
19. As stated above, the guilt of accused is established for
offences punishable under Sections-509, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal
Code. So, he is liable to be convicted for said offences. But, it is
necessary to hear accused, his Ld. Adv. and Ld. A.P.P. for the State on the
point of sentence. So, I stop here with my judgment.
20. Heard accused in person, Ld. Adv. Shri. Akbar Pindara and
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Shah on the point of sentence. It is submitted by Ld. Adv.
for accused that, he is not previous convict. He is having responsibility
of his family. His minor daughter is undergoing cancer treatment.
Hence, lenient view may be taken against him. Per contra, Ld. APP
submitted that, maximum punishment be imposed.
-- 8 of 10 --
9 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
21. The first and foremost consideration here is whether
accused can be released on probation of good behaviour bond and for
that it is essential to see the background of offender, nature of offence
and circumstances under which offence is committed. Noticeably, there
is no acquaintance between informant and accused. Informant and his
old age parents booked OLA cab to reach at home after they arrived
late at night at airport. There was absolutely no need or reason for
accused to raise such kind of quarrel with passengers sitting in his
vehicle. Furthermore, the manner and conduct of accused with old age
passengers is absolutely not justified. His mis-behaviour and abusive
behaviour caused great inconvenience, hardship and harassment to
informant and his old age parents. Naturally, during odd hours at night
there are not many travel options available, without considering all
these difficulties/ factors, accused compelled the informant and his
parents to change the cab and approach the police for help. Such kind
of gesture and misconduct on the part of cab driver with passenger to
not warrant any benefit under under the provisions of Probation of
Offender's Act.
22. Section 509 of IPC prescribes punishment for a term which
may extend to 3 years and also with fine. Section 506 of IPC prescribes
punishment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine, or
with both. Section 504 of IPC prescribes punishment for a term which
may extend to 2 years or with fine, or with both.
23. In so far as sentencing is concerned, primarily it has to be
borne in mind that sentencing of any offence has a social goal. Sentence
is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of offence and the
manner in which the offence has been committed. The accused must
realize that offence committed by him has not only treated as dent in
-- 9 of 10 --
10 C.C. No.694/PW/2019-Judgment
CNR NO.MHMM19-002931-2019
the life of the victim but also gives a message to society and like minded
offenders. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the
accused in respect of his background and the circumstances under
which offence is committed, I sum up my discussion and pass the
following order :
O R D E R
(1) Accused is convicted for offences punishable under Sections-509,
506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 248(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2) Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term
of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a
term of one month for the offence punishable under Section-509
of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term
of three months for the offence punishable under Section-506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(4) Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term
of three months for the offence punishable under Section-504 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(5) All sentences shall run concurrently.
(6) Accused to surrender his bail bonds.
(7) Copy of this judgment be given to accused free of cost.
(S.A.R. Sayed)
Dated : 24/01/2022 Metropolitan Magistrate
Place : Mumbai 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Pkk
-- 10 of 10 --