Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: JUDGMENT 1 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
Received on : 22.06.2018
Registered on : 22.06.2018
Decided on : 31.01.2023
Duration : 04 Ys. 07 M. 09 Ds.
Exh. : 11
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY J. W. GAIKWAD)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No. 1670/PW/2018
CNR No. MHMM190064582018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 19/11/2017
(c) The name of informant
(if any);
: The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of M.I.D.C. Police
Station in 489/2017).
(d) The names of the accused
persons, their parentage
and residence;
: 1)
2)
3)
Arjun Babu Kamble,
Age : 18 years, Occ : Driver,
Ajay Manoj Kamble,
Age : 18 years, Occ : Driver,
R/o : R.No.422,
Saishraddha CHS, opposite
Dominoz Pizza, Mulgaon
Dongari, Andheri (E),
Mumbai
Karan Babu Kamble,
Age : 21 years, Occ : Driver,
Accused Nos. 1 & 3 r/at:
R.No.1335, Saishraddha CHS,
Opp. Dominoz Pizza, Mulgaon
Dongari, Andheri (E),
Mumbai.
...2/
-- 1 of 6 --
JUDGMENT 2 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
e) The offences complained
of or proved ;
: U/sec : 326, 504 and 506(2) read
with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
(f) The plea of the accused
and examination (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
(g) The final order; : Accused are acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 30/01/2023
APPEARANCE :
Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Khade for State.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Rangnekar for the accused
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 31.01.2023)
1. The above named accused persons stands charged for
having committed an offence punishable under Sections 326, 504 and
506(2) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The brief facts of the prosecution's case are, as follows :
2. The informant Nikhil Rajkumar Kamble has given F.I.R. at
police station M.I.D.C. that on 18/11/2017 at about 08.00 hours, when
he was going to vegetable shop to help his mother, accused no.1 met on
the way and started hurling abuses to him on account of previous
quarrel. Thereafter, the informant went to the shop and narrated all
the incident to his mother. At about 10.30 p.m. when the informant
came to his house, all accused beat him by means of bamboo. Due to
which the informant sustained injury to his shoulder and head and
fracture injury to his little finger. When his mother and sister tried to
pacify the quarrel, the accused also assaulted them by fisticuffs. The
...3/
-- 2 of 6 --
JUDGMENT 3 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
accused also threatened the informant to kill him. People gathered
there and rescued the informant. Thereafter, the informant went to
Cooper hospital and after taking medical treatment lodged report to
police station M.I.D.C. about the incident.
3. On the basis of report C.R. No. 489/2017 was registered
under sections 326, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused. Investigation of the case was carried
out by P.S.I. Jitendra Wagh. He visited the spot of incident and seized
wooden bamboo in presence of panch witnesses. He recorded
statement of informant and witnesses, arrested the accused, collected
injury report of the informant and as there is incriminating evidence
against the accused, he filed chargesheet against the accused.
4. Charges were famed against accused on 03/08/2022. They
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has
examined three witnesses. As no incriminating evidence came on
record against the accused, their statement under 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure came to be dispensed with.
5. In view of above facts following points arose for my
determination and I recorded my findings against them for the reasons
given below :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention, voluntarily caused grievous
In the negative.
...4/
-- 3 of 6 --
JUDGMENT 4 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
hurt to the informant by means of
wooden bamboo?
2] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention, intentionally insulted the
informant by abusing him?
In the negative.
3] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention, committed criminal
intimidation by threatening to the
informant?
In the negative.
4] What order ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT Nos.1 to 3 :
6. The informant Nikhil Rajkumar Kamble (P.W.1) deposes at
Exh.4 that the incident took place prior 23 years within his building
premises. When he returned from his work, somebody assaulted him.
Due to darkness he could not recognize them. He sustained injury to
his little finger of right hand. His mother and sister rescued him. He
lodged report (Exh.5) of the incident. In crossexamination the
informant admitted that dispute is settled between him and accused
and therefore, he does not want to proceed with the case.
7. Sangeeta Kamble (P.W.2) is the mother of the informant
and Gunjan Kamble (P.W.3) is the sister of the informant. Both the
witnesses deposed that some unknown persons assaulted the informant.
...5/
-- 4 of 6 --
JUDGMENT 5 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
Accused were residing in the same building, but they don't know
whether accused were present on the spot on the day of incident. In
her cross examination Sangeeta Kamble (P.W.2) and Gunjan Kamble
(P.W.3) admitted that they have settled the matter out of Court.
8. I have gone through the prosecution evidence. The
informant and accused have filed compromise pursis (Exh.6) on record.
From the record it is clear that due to compromise between the parties,
the prosecution witnesses have not stated anything against the accused.
No incriminating evidence came on record against the accused. 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 :
9. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted. Seized wooden
bamboo being worthless, be destroyed after appeal period is over.
In the result, in answer to point No.4, I pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Accused No. 1) Arjun Babu Kamble, Age : 18 years, r/at :
R.No.1335, Saishraddha CHS, Opp. Dominoz Pizza, Mulgaon
Dongari, Andheri (E), Mumbai 2) Ajay Manoj Kamble, Age : 18
years, R/o : R. No. 422, Saishraddha CHS, Opp. Dominoz Pizza,
Mulgaon Dongari, Andheri (E), Mumbai and accused No.3) Karan
Babu Kamble, Age : 21 years, r/at : R.No.1335, Saishraddha CHS,
Opp. Dominoz Pizza, Mulgaon Dongari, Andheri (E), Mumbai are
hereby acquitted vide Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence
...6/
-- 5 of 6 --
JUDGMENT 6 C.C.NO. 1670/PW/2018
punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506(2) read with section
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The earlier P.R. bonds of accused stand cancelled.
3. The accused to furnish P.R. of Rs.5,000/ each in compliance to
section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
4. The seized property i.e. wooden Bamboo, be destroyed after
appeal period is over.
(Judgment dictated on dais and pronounced in open court).
Date.: 31/01/2023
(J. W. Gaikwad)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai
Typed on : 31.01.2023
Signed on : 31.01.2023
.../
-- 6 of 6 --