Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.765/PW/2018
Filed on .. 08.03.2018
Registered on .. 08.03.2018
Delivered on .. 10.11.2023
Duration .. 05Y 08M 02D
CNR No.MHMM190030292018
Exh.11
BEFORE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.765/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 24.05.2017
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Vile Parle Police
Station (CR No.179/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Manoj @ Manish Dilip Kamble –
19 yrs, Occupation : Nil
Res of Road No.2, Andheri Sahar
Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.363 of the Indian Penal
Code
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : As Per Final Order
h) The date of such order; : 10.11.2023
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Pradeep Shetty for the accused
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.765/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 10.11.2023)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 24.05.2017 at 18.30 hrs., at Walmiki Nagar, Behind Tadi
Madi Shop, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai someone kidnapped informant's
minor daughter viz. Gungun – 14 yrs and 5 months. Therefore, the
informant went to Vile Parle Police station and lodged FIR. As per FIR,
Crime No.179/2017 registered against the accused. Thereafter,
Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot
panchanama and after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet against the accused.
2. I have framed charge against the accused vide Exh.5 and it
read over and explained to accused in vernacular, to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial and
false implication.
3. There is no incriminating evidence against accused, therefore
statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stands
dispensed with.
4. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.765/PW/2018
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proves that the accused
on 24.05.2017 at 18.30 hrs., at Walmiki Nagar,
Behind Tadi Madi Shop, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai kidnapped informant's minor daughter
viz. Gungun – 14 yrs and 5 months without her
consent and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 363 of Indian Penal
Code? ...Not
proved
2 What order ? Accused is
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 and 2 :
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all two witnesses i.e. P.W. No. 1 Vanita Pravin Bundale at
Exh.8 and P.W. No.2 Gungun Pravin Bundale at Exh.10. Thereafter, the
prosecution filed evidence closed pursis, therefore, evidence of
prosecution closed by passing order below Exh.1.
6. P.W. No.1 informant Vanita Pravin Bundale deposed that
incident took place in the year 2017. On 25th day, when she came back
to her home she seen that her daughter not available in the house.
Therefore she called her relatives on mobile phone. Thereafter, she
lodged the complaint in the police station. It is at Exh.9 but she didn't
remember it contents. As the witness not supported the prosecution
case, Ld. A.P.P. sought the permission to crossexamine her. During her
crossexamination she admitted that, now the matter has been settled
amongst them out of court and now there is no dispute between her and
accused and she didn't want to proceed with this matter.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.765/PW/2018
7. P.W. No.2 Gungun Pravin Bundale, daughter of informant
deposed that the incident took place in the year 2017. Due to dispute
took place in her family she went to her relative. In her chief
examination she admitted that accused Manoj had not abducted her.
Therefore, Ld. A.P.P. crossexamine the said witness. During their cross
examination she admitted that the matter has been settled amongst
them out of court and now there is no dispute between her and accused
and she didn't want to proceed with this matter.
8. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution case, the
informant as well as witness are not supporting to the prosecution, hence,
nothing incriminating evidence came on record against the accused. It is
also pertinent to note that from the evidence of prosecution, it appears
that the compromise took place between informant and accused,
therefore, the prosecution has not examined further evidence in this
matter. Considering facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion
that prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, I answered points No.1 is in the negative
and for answering point No.2, I pass following order :
ORDER
1) Accused viz. Manoj @ Manish Dilip Kamble is acquitted
vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable
U/Sec.363 of the Indian Penal Code
2) Bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.765/PW/2018
3) Accused is directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/ for
appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case
appeal is filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section
437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
4) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
sd/
Date : 10.11.2023 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 10.11.2023
Signed on : 10.11.2023
-- 5 of 5 --