Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
Filed on .. 14.06.2018
Registered on .. 14.06.2018
Delivered on .. 06.10.2023
Duration .. 05Y 03M 22D
CNR No.MHMM190062642018
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.1580/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 04.07.2017
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Andheri Police
Station (CR No.357/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Mohammad Akbar Jafar Ahmad
Sidhiqui 29 yrs
Occupation : Driver
R/o.: Room No.211, Shahid Road,
Jogeshwari, Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/S.325,504,506,427 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; : As Per Final Order
h) The date of such order; : 06.10.2023
Appearance : Ld. APP. S.S. Mokal for the State
Ld. Adv.B.A. Patel for the accused
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06.10.2023)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offences punishable
U/Sec.325,504,506,427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
“IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 04.07.2017 when informant Devnarayan Tripathi was
proceeding towards Panipat Maidan, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (E),
Mumbai by his motorcar bearing no. MH48F3519, at that time one
Activa motorcyclist MH02DY6448 going in front of him fell down
from his motorcycle due to the dash given by the vehicle. Thereafter, the
motorcyclist abused the informant and his cousin Dipankar Tiwari. Said
motorcyclist assaulted the informant by helmet and with hands and also
threatened them. When informant's sister Shashi intervened the quarrel,
she too assaulted by the motorcyclist by helmet. Therefore, the
informant went to Andheri Police station and lodged FIR. As per FIR,
Crime No.357/2017 u/s.325,504,506,427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code registered against the accused. Thereafter, Investigating Officer
recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot panchanama and
collected medical certificate of the informant and after completion of
investigation submitted chargesheet 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.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
3. Since 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 :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proves that on
04.07.2017 at about 6.45 pm at Panipat
Maidan, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (E),
Mumbai the accused in furtherance of their
common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to
the informant and witness by helmet and
hands and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec. 325 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
...Not
proved
2 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
date, time & place, accused in furtherance of
their common intention insulted the informant
and witness by words and knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause
informant to break public peace and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/sec. 504
r/w 34 of IPC?
...Not
proved
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
3 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
witness and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/Sec. 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ? ...Not
proved
4 Whether prosecution proves that on the above
said date, time & place, accused in furtherance
of their common intention committed mischief
by damaging glass of motorcar of informant
and thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.427 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
...Not
proved
5 What order ? Accused is
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 5:
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all two witnesses i.e. P.W. No. 1 Devnarayan Radheshyam
Tripathi at Exh.4 and P.W. No.2 Shashi Devnarayan Tripathi. Thereafter,
the prosecution filed evidence closed pursis, therefore, evidence of
prosecution closed by passing order below Exh.1.
6. P.W. No.1 informant Devnarayan Radheshyam Tripathi is
material witness. In his examination in chief, he deposed that incident
was occurred in the year 2018 at Gaondhivali, Andheri (E). At that time
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
he was proceeding towards Vasai to Cooper Hospital by Car. When he
reached at Gaondhivali chowk, accused came in front of him.
Thereafter, hot exchange of words took place between him and accused,
therefore, he went to police station and lodged the report. It is at Exh.5.
Witness stated that he didn't know it contents. As the witness not
supported the prosecution case, hence Ld. A.P.P. sought the permission
to crossexamine him. During his crossexamination, he admitted that,
the matter has been settled amongst them out of court and now there is
no dispute between him and accused person and he doesn't want to
proceed with this matter.
7. P.W. No.2 Shashi Devnarayan Tripathi, witness of the alleged
incident. She deposed that she did not know when incident took place.
She further deposed that accused did not give any blow on her head
with helmet.
8. I have perused the pursis at Exh.7 filed by the informant and
accused. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution case, the
informant as well as the witness are not supporting to the prosecution,
therefore, 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. From the record, it also appears that there are cross
cases. Therefore, 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 4 are in
the negative and for answering point No.5, I pass following order :
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Judgment in C. C. No.1580/PW/2018
ORDER
1) Accused viz. Mohammad Akbar Jafar Ahmad Sidhiqui
is acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the
offences punishable U/Sec.325,504,506,427 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2) Bail bond of accused is stands cancelled.
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.
Date : 06.10.2023 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 06.10.2023
Signed on : 06.10.2023
-- 6 of 6 --