Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
Filed on .. 19/03/2018
Registered on .. 19/03/2018
Delivered on .. 17/08/2023
Duration .. 05Y 04M 29D
CNR No.MHMM190036922018
Exh. 8
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.856/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 25.12.2017 at about 04.57
a.m.
(c) The name of the
informant, if any;
: Through PSO Vileparle Police
Station (CR No.8/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Sidharth Hemant Chandiramani
Age : 24 years
Occupation : Nil
R/o.: Indrasukh,
C/32 Char Bunglow,
Andheri West, Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.380 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; : 17/08/2023
-- 1 of 6 --
2 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Nagesh Joshi for the accused
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 17/08/2023)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offence
punishable U/Sec.380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 25.12.2017 at about 04.57 a.m. at Bava International
hotel, Vileparle East, Mumbai, accused committed theft of Tab of
Apple company worth of Rs.21,900/ from the above said hotel.
Therefore, the informant went to Vileparle police station and
lodged FIR . As per FIR, Crime No. 8/2018 registered against the
accused. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded statement of
witnesses, prepared memorandum cum seizure panchanama,
seized tab and after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet against the accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.2 and it read over and explained to accused in
vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
His defence is of total denial and false implication. Statements of
the accused U/Sec.313 of CrPC are recorded at Exh.7.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
3. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution prove that on
25.12.2017 at about 04.57 a.m. at Bava
International hotel, Vileparle East, Mumbai,
accused committed theft of Tab of Apple
company worth of Rs.21,900/ from the
above said hotel and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC ?
Not
proved..
2 What order ? Accused is
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to point No. 1 :
4. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has examined total two witnesses i.e. the informant Rajiv Singh as
PW1 at Exh.4 and Deepak Devghade as PW2 at Exh.6.
5. PW1 Rajiv Singh has stated in his chief examination that
on he was working as Lobby Manager from 2000 in Hotel Bawa
International at Vileparle. The incident took place on 25.12.2017
at about 05.00 a.m. He had kept feedback tab of Apple company
in the drawer. In the morning, at 07.00 a.m. he came to know
that said feedback tab was stolen from the drawer of restaurant of
said hotel. On 26.12.2017 he saw in CCTV footage that their
hotels exemployee Sidharth Chandiramani took out said feedback
-- 3 of 6 --
4 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
tab from the drawer of restaurant and kept with him. Sidharth
Chandiramani was working as waiter in their hotel. Thereafter on
08.01.2018 he lodged FIR (Exh.5) against Sidharth Chandiramani.
I received stolen feedback tab from the police station as per order
of the Court.
6. During the cross examination, he stated that he was on
duty as Loby Manager from 02.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on
26.12.2017. He specifically stated that he cannot say description
of clothes wore by the person who had stolen feed back tab. In the
cross examination, he had given explanation for lodging FIR
belatedly. He stated that accused Sidharth was exemployee of
hotel, therefore, his associates called Sidharth for return of the
hotel tab, but he did not reply till 08.01.2018, therefore, he lodged
FIR against the accused.
7. PW2 has stated in his chief examination that he stated
that on 08.01.2018 he was working at Bava Hotel, Vileparle as
Electrician and he used to do work of repairing CCTV, wiring,
lights etc. He know the informant Rajiv Singh who was Manager
in Bava Hotel and he told him that one Apple company Tab was
missing. Therefore, they searched in CCTV footage and saw that
one waiter who was working there, who came there to meet his
friend & taking said Tab from the drawer of the restaurant. But he
further deposed that he can not identify that waiter to whom they
saw in CCTV footage as he was not working in his department.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
8. During cross examination, he stated that CCTV footage
DVR was kept in locker room/server room and said server room
was locked by password and said password was known by him,
Manager and MD. He further deposed that they saw CCTV footage
of date 08.02.2018. He had come on duty in said hotel from
20.12.2017 to 31.01.2018. Police called him for one time to the
police station after 08.01.2018. He further deposed that he do not
know about the incident.
9. From the evidence, it seems that PW1 who is Manager in
the hotel Bava International, at Vileparle since 2000 and PW2 is
also working at hotel Bava International as Electrician. Both the
prosecution witnesses are working in hotel Bava International,
Vileparle, therefore their testimony are required to be scrutinized
carefully. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the present case
and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
Prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who had
given their testimony on the basis of CCTV footage. In the present
matter, prosecution has failed to produce CCTV footage being an
important piece of evidence creates serious doubt in the
prosecution case and non production of such best evidence is fatal
to the prosecution case. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the basic ingredients of Sec.380 of IPC. Therefore benefit of doubt
given to the accused.
10. From the evidence on record, it seems that, in absence of
CCTV footage, the testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be relied on
-- 5 of 6 --
6 C. C. NO.856/PW/2018
because the case of the prosecution is totally depend on
circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the accused for the offence which he has been charged.
Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. In the result, in answer to
points No.1 in the negative and for answering point No.2, I pass
following order :
ORDER
1) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of
IPC vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused is directed to furnish P.B. & S.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) Seized muddebal i.e. Tab be returned to its owner after appeal
period is over, if any.
5) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 17.08.2023 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
ask 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated &
typed on : 17.08.2023
Signed on : 17.08.2023
-- 6 of 6 --