Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
C/S filed on : 20/04/2018
Registered on : 04/06/2018
Decided on : 23/01/2026
Duration : 06 Y 09 M 03 D
Exh. 7.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
(C.R.No. 428/2017)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-005896-2018)
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Juhu Police Station, Mumbai. ……… Informant.
V/s.
Kuldeepsingh Gurmelsingh Lahot,
Age : 39 Yrs.
R/o.75, Society, D/6, Mhada,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ………. Accused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ld. APP for State : Shri. Shaikh
The Ld. Advocate for accused : Shri. Shah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART-B
Date of Offence 30/07/2017
-- 1 of 8 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
Date of FIR 30/07/2017
Date of Charge-sheet 20/04/2018
Date of Framing Charge 24/05/2023
Date of commencement of evidence 08/08/2023
Date of which Judgment is reserved 23/01/2026
Date of Judgment 23/01/2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any. ---
Accused Details
Sr.
No
.
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sente
nce
Impos
ed
Period of
Detention
Undergon
e during
Trial for
purpose
of Section
428
Cr.P.C.
1 Kuldeepsingh
Gurmelsingh
Lahot
09/08/2017 09/08/2017 S. 324,
509 r/w
34 of IPC
Acquitted ----- -----
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 23/01/2026)
Accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Facts of the prosecution case in short are as under :
2. FIR No. 428/2017 was registered with police station Juhu
-- 2 of 8 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
P.S. on the report of Vishakha Pande against two unknown persons. She
has informed that on 30/07/2017 at about 00.30 in the midnight at
Ramy Guest Line Hotel, R. Adda, out of them on one person pushed her
friend and molested his wife and on being confronted by him they
caused alarm to him to commit breach of public peace and have
assaulted him with some sharp weapon and fist blows and he took
treatment at Cooper Hospital.
3. PSI Nagesh Misal had recorded the FIR and conducted
investigation wherein he prepared spot panchanama, collected injury
certificate of injured witness, recorded statement of witnesses and also
arrested the accused vide arrest panchanama. After conclusion of
investigation he has presented chargesheet before the Court.
4. On 24/05/2023 accused has pleaded innocence upon the
charge read over and explained to him and trial commenced.
Prosecution adduced evidence of only one witness i.e. Investigating
officer API Nagesh Maruti Misal. As there was no incriminating
circumstances against accused, his statement u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was
dispensed with.
5. Heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Advocate for
accused.
6. Upon hearing the argument from both sides and upon
perusal of record, points for determination alongwith my findings
-- 3 of 8 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
thereon as under :-
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
30/07/2017 at 00.45 hours at R. Adda, Rami
Guest Line Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai accused
alongwith one unknown accused, in
furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused hurt to the witness Vikhyat
by means of cup of glass (dkpspk Xykl), used as
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death ?
No
2] Does the prosecution prove that on abovesaid
date, time and place, accused alongwith one
unknown accused, in furtherance of their
common intention, intending to insult the
modesty of the informant, a woman, utters
words as mentioned in the complaint and
intrudes upon her privacy ?
No
3] What order ? Accused is
acquitted
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOs. 1 AND 2 :-
7. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences
-- 4 of 8 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
for which the accused has been charged, the prosecution must prove
that the accused before the Court has intruded upon the privacy of
informant and for that the prosecution must have to examine the
informant who is the star witness in this case. However, inspite of
issuing summons, the prosecution has failed to secure her presence. To
prove the same, the prosecution has relied only upon the testimony of
the Investigating officer who has stated about registration of FIR on the
report of the informant and about the investigation carried by him
wherein he prepared spot panchnama and seized broken glass from the
spot. However, the panch witnesses in whose presence the pieces of
glass were seized, are not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, spot
panchnama and seizure panchnama are not duly proved due to non
examination of panch witnesses.
8. Further the IO has recorded statement of witnesses,
collected injury report and he arrested the accused. However, after his
arrest, the Test Identification parade was not conducted by the IO in
order to verify whether the accused present before the Court had
molested the modesty of the informant or he assaulted her friend
namely Vikhyat. Certainly, failure to conduct test identification parade is
fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, the injured friend of the informant
namely Vikhyat who was also the eye witness to the incident, is also not
examined by the prosecution. Apart from it, the prosecution has not
proved injury sustained by Vikhyat with the help of corroborative
medical evidence. Except the IO the prosecution has failed to examine
any eye witness or independent witness. Therefore, there is no
convincing material on record to make out the ingredients of Section
-- 5 of 8 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
509 of IPC as the manner of molesting or misbehaving the informant or
the ingredients of Section 324 of IPC. Thus, as none of the offences are
proved, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Therefore, I answer
point Nos. 1 to 2 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :
9. The prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, in
answer to point No.2, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 Accused Kuldeepsingh Gurmelsingh Lahot is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 324, 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and they be set at liberty.
3 Seized pieces of glass being worthless be destroyed after
appeal period is over.
4 Accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/- under Section
437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mumbai.
Date :- 23/01/2026.
Dictated on : 23/01/2026.
Transcribed on : 23/01/2026.
Signed on : 23/01/2026.
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 8 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
PART-C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE/ COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW1 Nagesh Maruti Misal (Exh.5) Investigating Officer
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
-- NIL --
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
S.N Exh. No. Description
1 Exh.6 FIR
2 Exh.7 Spot Panchnama
B. Defence :
-- 7 of 8 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 1131/PW/2018
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 Nil Nil
D. Material Objects :
Sr.No. Exh. No. Description
1 -- Nil
Mumbai. (S.G.Agrawal)
Date :- 23/01/2026. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --