Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.1640/PW/2018
Filed on .. 20/06/2018
Registered on .. 20/06/2018
Delivered on .. 16/09/2019
Duration .. 01Y 02M 26D
CNR No. MHMM19-006446-2018
Exh.8
BEFORE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by S.C.Pathare)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: 1640/PW/2018.
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
: On 30.01.2018 from 10.15 hours
till 10.30 hours.
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through P.S.O. Andheri Police
Station(CR No.54/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Pranay Deepak Gavkar @ Panya
Age : 21 years.
R/o. Shantabai Tembekar
Chawl, Room No.4, Ajad road,
Gundivali, Andheri East.
2. Rohit Ravindra Naik.
(Already convicted on plead
guilty).
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.379 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.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C. C. NO.1640/PW/2018
h) The date of such order; : 16/09/2019
Appearance : Ld. APP. Shri. G.G. Khade for the State.
Ld. Adv. Shri. R.T. Shaikh for the Accused.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 16.09.2019)
1. The accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offence
punishable U/Sec.379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
“IPC”).
Factual Matrix :-
On 30.01.2018 informant kept Rs.25,000/- inside the inner
pocket of the pant and got in bus for attending the office. He was
standing near the door. He realized that somebody touched to his said
pocket. In order to verify the same informant fumbled his said pocket
and realized that his said amount was disappearing. He noticed that
two persons had got alighted in the midway from the bus. Informant
got suspicion that said persons might have stolen his said amount.
Thereafter informant was about to get down from the bus but that time
one third person from the bus told informant that whether amount etc
of him had fallen. Therefore informant looked behind but that time,
said earlier two persons had fled away at about 10.30am. He got down
at the corner. He went to police station and lodged report of the
incident.
2. On the basis of it, crime came to be registered against the
accused. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Police arrested
accused. Tajuddin and Kalim gave memorandum statement and
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C. C. NO.1640/PW/2018
thereafter shown spot of the incident to the police. On completion of
the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet.
3. Accused Rohit pleaded guilty during jail court. Charge is
framed vide Exh.04 against the other accused. The same was read over
and explained to him in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false
implication.
4. Following points arose for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed infra:-
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proved that on
30.01.2018 from 10.15 to 10.30 hours,
at Radha Silk Milk Corner, Andheri East,
Accused along-with other accused,
committed theft of cash of Rs.25,000/- of
the informant ? ..Not proved.
2 What order ? As Per Final
Order.
R E A S O N S
As to point No. 1 :
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined only one witness. PW1 Suresh Shinde (Informant) is
examined at Exh.6.
The statement of accused U/Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C has been
dispensed with.
6. In this case, testimony of PW1 i.e. informant (Victim)
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C. C. NO.1640/PW/2018
assumed much importance. He deposed that in the crowd his amount
was stolen. According to his testimony he had seen three persons
involved in the alleged incident during the broad daylight. However, in
his chief and cross examination he has fairly conceded that he does not
know the present accused and this accused is not concern with the
incident in question. He has replied that the persons involved in the
incident in the bus were different. In short, there is absence of clear,
cogent/reliable evidence against the accused.
7. It is the settled position of law that prosecution has to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However,
in the present case, it has failed to do so. In view of the above peculiar
facts, circumstances and evidence, accused is found entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answered above point in the negative
and proceed to pass infra order :-
ORDER
i) Accused1 mentioned above stands acquitted of the offence
punishable U/Sec. 379 r/w 34 of the IPC vide the provisions of section
248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
ii) His bail bonds (if any) are cancelled.
iii) The accused is directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.5,000/- for
appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court towards compliance of
Section 437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
iv) Dictated & declared in the open Court.
Date : 16.09.2019 (S.C. Pathare)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
ask 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
1 Named & described in the schedule at page No.1 of this judgment at Sr.No.(d).
-- 4 of 4 --