Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
Received on : 01/04/2019,
Registered on : 01/04/2019,
Decided on : 13/01/2023,
Duration : 03 Y.09 M. 12 D.
Exh. : 11
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
(CNR NO. MHMM190049232019 )
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 24/11/2018
(c) The name of the
complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police Station
in C. R. No. 446/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
persons and their
parentage and residence;
: 1. Kailas Bharat Karande,
Age 28 Years,
Occupation – Service,
2. Krishna Sitaram Main,
Age 40 Years,
Occupation – Nil,
Both R/o.Sunderwadi Flower
Chawl, Room No.11, Sat Bangala,
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offences complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 324, 323, 504,
read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused
and their examination (if
any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty
-- 1 of 7 --
2 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
(g) The final order; : The accused are acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 13/01/2023,
Ms. Seema Mokal, APP for the State.
Mr. Sujay Namey, Advocate for the accused.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 13/01/2023.)
1. The accused No.1 and 2 are prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Section 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/11/2018 the
dealer of garage namely Ketan Palicha had parked his motor car near
the drainage. In front of the drainage there is house of Navnath. At
about 12.30 p.m. the wife of Navnath Usha had been to him and told
the said parked car was removed that place because its glass shadow
went to her house and therefore the glass is reflected to her house.
Therefore, informant told her don't tell me, you should tell the owner.
Owner came out and there is verbal exchanged between them.
Thereafter, she went to police station to lodge complaint. Therefore,
his employer Nilesh is also went to police station to lodge complaint. At
about 14.30 hrs to 15.45 hrs he was doing the work of his garage. At
that time two unknown persons came on motor cycle near the garage
and asked 'Shankar Koun Hai'. Navnath is also with that unknown
persons. One of them came to informant and asked 'Aurat Ko Kyun Gali
Deta Hai'. Informant told him he never abused. Therefore, motor cycle
rider assaulted him. Other person has assaulted him by fist and kick
-- 2 of 7 --
3 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
blows. He also assaulted him by helmet on his back. He also sustained
injury on his thumb. At that time people gathered there and mother of
employer rescued him. Thereafter, the informant went to police station
and lodged report against that two unknown persons.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime no.
446/2018 came to be registered against the accused persons. During
investigation I.O. drawn spot panchanama in presence of panch
witnesses. He arrested the accused persons. During further
investigation I.O. recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of
investigation, I.O. filed chargesheet.
4. The charge is framed against the accused persons for the
above mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The prosecution has examined total three witnesses in this
case. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure came to be recorded. Their defence is of total
denial.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused no.1 and 2 in furtherance of
their common intention, voluntarily
caused hurt to the informant Shankar
Ramchandra Shah by means of fist and
kick blows and helmet?
In the negative
-- 3 of 7 --
4 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
2] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused no.1 and 2 in furtherance of
their common intention, voluntarily
caused hurt to the informant?
In the negative
3] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused no.1 and 2 in furtherance of
their common intention, intentionally
insulted the informant by abusing him?
In the negative
4] What order ? The accused are
acquitted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO. 1 TO 3 :
6. These points are interconnected with each other, therefore,
they are taken up together for consideration and determination.
7. Shankar Ramchandra Shah, informant (P. W. 1) deposes
at Exh. P04 that he was working in motor garage. His duty hours
started from 9.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Owner of the garage is Nilesh
Yadav. Incident occurred in the year 2018. When he was present for
work, one customer came to the garage and parked his car. One lady
who is resided in front of garage came to him and stated that because of
parked car, its mirror reflected. He answered her to tell his owner. That
lady had start to abuse him. One person came from her house and
pelted stone on vehicle and damaged the mirror. Thereafter, his garage
owner had filed complaint against them. After that at about 3.30 p.m.
both the accused came on bike to his garage. They asked him who is
Shankar. He told them he is Shankar. They started to hit him by
helmet. His owner's mother had came there and she rescued him.
Thereafter, they left the place. He went to police station. They referred
him to hospital. He lodged the complaint Exh.5.
-- 4 of 7 --
5 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
8. During his crossexamination he stated that his garage
owner is present in the Court. He had studied upto 5 standard in Hindi
medium. Other than Hindi language he can't read. His complaint is
Marathi language. He further stated that there are many cars were
parked. He denied that the open premises is not owned by his owner.
He deposed that the said area is a public way from where peoples were
access. He further deposed that because of parking there was dispute
between him and that lady. He stated that his owner and that lady
Usha went to police station because of that incident. There is case
pending on the dispute of land between his owner and the peoples
residing in front of garage. He further denied that mother of his owner
also not came and not rescue him and nobody had assaulted him.
9. Natwarlal Chimanlal Solanki, panch witness deposes at
Exh.6 that police had called him to police station and they have taken
his signature. He do not know whether police called him to act as a
panch. The Advocate of accused has declined to crossexamine
P.W.No.2, panch witness.
10. Pravin Chandrakant Rakshe, Investigating Officer, deposes
at Exh.7 that incident occurred on 24/11/2018. on that day he was
duty officer. Informant came to police station and he had registered
FIR. He also prepared spot panchanama Exh.8 before two panchas.
Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of witnesses. The name of
the accused persons are revealed from the statement of witnesses. He
received medical certificate of the injured and thereafter filed charge
sheet against the accused persons.
11. During his crossexamination he admitted that the spot of
-- 5 of 7 --
6 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
incident is slum area. He also admitted that the informant was working
in the garage owned by Nilesh Yadav and there was dispute between
Nilesh Yadav and slum resident. He denied that he filed false FIR on
the say of Nilesh Yadav. He also denied that he prepared spot
panchanama in the police station.
12. I have gone through the record. The prosecution failed to
produce any concrete evidence against the accused. The prosecution
failed to adduce any further evidence to prove the case of prosecution.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused.
Hence, I answer Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.4:
13. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused
persons. Therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted. In the
result, in answer to Point No.4, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused No.1 Kailas Bharat Karande and accused No.2
Krishna Sitaram Main are acquitted of the offence punishable
under Sections 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 stands cancelled.
3 The accused No.1 and 2 to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each vide Section 437– A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for appearance before the
higher court, if said court issues notice to them for their
-- 6 of 7 --
7 C.C.NO.1113/PW/2019
appearance in the matter in which present judgment is
challenged, if any.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
Mumbai ( A. I. Shaikh )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date: 13/01/2023 44 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed on : 13/01/2023
Signed on : 13/01/2023
-- 7 of 7 --