Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
Filed on .. 22.05.2018
Registered on .. 22.05.2018
Delivered on .. 19.09.2024
Duration .. 06Y 03M 27D
CNR No.MHMM190056912018
Exh.12
IN THE COURT JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
65th COURT, 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.1360/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 26.02.2018
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Andheri Police
Station (CR No.106/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Gaurav Sanjay Pawar – 20 yrs.
Occupation : Student
2. Suchit Sudhakar More – 23 yrs
Occupation : Service
3. Sagar Rajendra Thadge–20 yrs
Occupation : Service
All Res of Room No.1, Chakala,
Andheri (E), Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.324,337,323,504,506(II)
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : Accused are acquitted
h) The date of such order; : 19.09.2024
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Rangnekar for the accused
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 19.09.2024)
1. Accused have been chargesheet ed for the offences
punishable U/Sec.324,337, 323,504, 506(II) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 26.02.2018 at 14.00 hrs., at Work Out Fitness,
Devulwadi, Andheri (E), Mumbai in anger of previous quarrel dtd.
25.02.2018 accused in furtherance of their common intention abused
the informant viz. Sazida Khan and her children. Accused threatened to
kill them and also assaulted them by kicks and blows. Accused Suchit
banged the head of informant's son Habib on iron gate. Thereafter, the
informant lodged the complaint against accused persons. On the basis of
complaint, Andheri Police station has registered an offence bearing
Crime No.106/2018. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer
has recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot panchanama,
collected medical certificate from the hospital. After completion of
investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused.
2. I have framed charge against the accused vide Exh.2 and it
read over and explained to accused in vernacular, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial and
false implication.
3. Since no incriminating evidence against accused, therefore
statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stands
dispensed with.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
4. 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 proves that accused no.2
Suchit on 26.02.2018 at 14.00 hrs., at Work
Out Fitness, Devulwadi, Andheri (E), Mumbai
alongwith other accused in furtherance of their
common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to
informant's son Arbaz by means of wooden
bamboo on his shoulder?
...Not
proved
2 Whether prosecution proves that accused on
the aforesaid date, time and place in
furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant's son
by iron gate on his head?
..Not
proved
3 Whether prosecution proves that accused on
the aforesaid date, time and place in
furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant's son
by hands?
.Not proved
4 Whether prosecution proves that accused on
the aforesaid date, time and place in
furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant's son
by hands?
.Not proved
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
5 Whether prosecution proves that accused on
the aforesaid date, time and place in
furtherance of their common intention insulted
the informant by words and knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause
informant to break public peace ? Not proved
6 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time & place, accused in furtherance
of their common intention, committed criminal
intimidation by threatening informant and his
son to kill ?
..Not
proved
7 What order ? Accused are
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 7:
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all three witnesses i.e. P.W. No. 1 Sajeda Mehmood Khan
at Exh.6, P.W. No.2 Shahbaz @ Habib Mehmood Khan at Exh.8 and
P.W. No.3 Arbaz Mehmood Khan at Exh.9. Thereafter, the prosecution
filed evidence closed pursis at Exh.11, therefore, evidence of prosecution
closed by passing order below Exh.1.
6. P.W. No.1 informant Sajeda Mehmood Khan has deposed
that on 26.02.2018 there was quarrel took place in between accused
persons and her. During the scuffle, her son Habib sustained injury on
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
his head. Thereafter she took her son to the Cooper Hospital. She didn't
see the person who assaulted her son. Thereafter, she lodged complaint
at Exh.7. As the witness not supported the prosecution case, Ld. A.P.P.
sought the permission to crossexamine her. During the cross
examination conducted by Ld. APP, she admitted that, accused persons
not assaulted her son and accused Gaurav not banged the head of his
son Habib on iron gate.
7. P.W. No.2 Shahbaz @ Habib Mehmood Khan and P.W. No.3
Arbaz Mehmood Khan are the sons of informant as well as injured of the
alleged incident. They have deposed in their examination in chief that
they didn't know about the incident. Therefore, Ld. A.P.P. crossexamine
to them. During their crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP, they
admitted that they have settled their dispute out of court and now there
is no dispute between accused and them, hence, they do not want to
proceed with this matter.
8. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution case, the
informant as well as witnesses 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 to 6 are in
the negative and for answering point No.7, I pass following order :
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Judgment in C. C. No.1360/PW/2018
ORDER
1) Accused viz. 1. Gaurav Sanjay Pawar 2. Suchit
Sudhakar More and 3. Sagar Rajendra Thadge are
acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 324,337,323,504,506(2),34 of the Indian
Penal Code
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused are directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/ each
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.
Date : 19.09.2024 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Judicial Magistrate(First Class)
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 19.09.2024
Signed on : 19.09.2024
-- 6 of 6 --