Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
Filed on .. 29/06/2018
Registered on .. 29/06/2018
Delivered on .. 04/08/2023
Duration .. 05Y 01M 06D
CNR No.MHMM190067012018
Exh.13
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.1745/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 08.04.2018 at about 00.30
hours
(c) The name of the
informant, if any;
: Through PSO Andheri Police
Station (CR No.194/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Manish Babulnath Bhongle
Age : 24 years
Occupation : Education
R/o.: Room No.1, Sukhdev
Chawl, Koldongri, Andheri
East, Mumbai.
2. Sagar Prakash Bhongle
Age : 28 years
Occupation : Service
R/o.: Room No.16, Raut
Chawl, Jumbo Darshan,
Andheri East, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 8 --
2 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
3. Amar Ashok Medhekar
Age : 35 years
Occupation : Nil
R/o.: Room No.15, Raut
Chawl, Andheri East,
Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.324, 323, 504 & 506 r/w
Sec.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; : 04/08/2023
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. Mangesh Rangnekar for the accused
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 04/08/2023)
1. Accused have been chargesheet ed for the offences
punishable U/Sec.324, 323, 504 & 506 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 08.04.2018 at about 00.30 hours at F Jumbo Darshan
building, on the footpath of Jeeva Mahale road, Andheri East,
Mumbai, accused in furtherance of their common intention,
voluntarily caused hurt to the informant namely Sagar Kadam by
means of iron Kada and by hands, abused and threatened him.
Therefore, the informant went to Andheri police station and
-- 2 of 8 --
3 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
lodged FIR. As per FIR, Crime No. 194/2018 registered against the
accused. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded statement of
witnesses, prepared spot panchanama, collected medical certificate
and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet
against the accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.3 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. The
statements of the accused U/Sec.313 of CrPC are recorded at
Exh.10, 11 and 12.
3. 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 prove that on
08.04.2018 at about 00.30 hours at F
Jumbo Darshan building, on the footpath of
Jeeva Mahale road, Andheri East, Mumbai,
accused in furtherance of their common
intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the
informant namely Sagar Kadam by means
of iron Kada and by hands and thereby
committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.324 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
Not
proved
-- 3 of 8 --
4 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
2 Whether prosecution prove that on the
above date, time & place, accused in
furtherance of their common intention,
intentionally insulted the informant by
abusing him and thereby gave provocation,
intending that such provocation would
cause him to break the public peace and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.323 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
Not
proved
3 Whether prosecution prove that on the
above date, time & place, accused in
furtherance of their common intention,
intentionally insulted the informant by
abusing him and thereby gave provocation,
intending that such provocation would
cause him to break the public peace and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/Sec.504 r/w Sec.34 of IPC ?
Not
proved
4 Whether prosecution prove that on the
above date, time & place, accused in
furtherance of common intention,
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening informant with intent to cause
alarm to him and thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec.506 r/w Sec.34
of IPC ?
Not
proved
-- 4 of 8 --
5 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
5 What order ? Accused
are
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 4 :
4. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has examined informant Sagar Kadam as PW1 at Exh.7 and Anand
Kadam as PW2 at Exh.9. By passing order below Exh.1, the
evidence of prosecution has closed on 19.06.2023.
5. PW1 Sagar Kadam has stated in his evidence that on
08.04.2018 at about 08.30 p.m. he was at Jumbo Darshan building
at Andheri along with his friends. At that time, accused Manish
was there and he abused and assaulted on nose of the informant
by means of iron ring (kada) which was in his right hand,
therefore he sustained bleeding injury. It has further come in his
evidence that thereafter, he went towards vachanalay, at that
place, accused Sagar, Amar and Manish beat him. Accused Sagar
and Amar threatened the informant to beat him. Informant's
parents were came and took him to Cooper hospital. Doctor gave
stitches to his nose. Thereafter he went to Andheri police station
and lodged FIR (Exh.8) against the accused. He further stated that
he can identify that iron ring (kada) if shown to him.
6. During cross examination, he stated that he had dispute
with accused Manish since long time. He further stated that the
hawkers were present at the time of incident. At the time of
-- 5 of 8 --
6 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
incident his friend Jatin was with him but his friend Jatin was not
with him at the hospital. He had narrated to the Doctor that he
had sustained injury by means of iron ring(kada). He further
stated that he had shown his shirt which was dabbed by blood to
the police officer, but said police officer had not seized my shirt.
Police has not recorded statement of his friend Jatin. No any
person was came to rescue me at the time of incident.
7. PW2 has stated in his examination in chief that the
informant is his son. On 08.04.2018 at about 08.30 p.m. he was in
his house. At that time, he came to know about the quarrel
occurred at F Jumbo Darshan building, therefore he went there.
He saw that blood was oozing from nose of his son Sagar,
thereafter, he asked to his son about the incident and he told that
Manish Bhongale assaulted on his nose by Kada(ring) which was
in his hand. He further stated that at that time, accused No.2 and
3 were present there. Thereafter he took his son to Cooper
hospital and treatment was given to him. He further stated that
said incident took place because before one month, he himself had
settled the dispute between the accused and his son on account of
Cricket match and again after one month, on same reason accused
assaulted on his son.
8. During the cross examination, he stated that except his
son and accused, nobody was present at the spot of incident.
9. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to examine
-- 6 of 8 --
7 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
the material witnesses. So far as the injury sustained by informant
PW1 is concerned, the prosecution has not examined Medical
Officer who examined the informant. Moreover, Investigating
Officer has not seized the clothes of the informant. Further from
the record, it seems that the prosecution has not examined
Investigating Officer who investigate the offence. The prosecution
not proved seizure panchanama of the alleged articles. As the
testimony of PW2 is concerned who is father of the PW1, he had
not seen the incident directly, therefore his testimony cannot be
said reliable.
10. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as the testimony of
informant is not trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, I come to the
conclusion that prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences which he has
been charged. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. In the
result, in answer to points No.1 to 4 in the negative and for
answering point No.5, I pass following order :
ORDER
1) Accused are acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.324,
323, 504 & 506 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section
248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
2) Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused are directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.15,000/ each for
-- 7 of 8 --
8 C. C. NO.1745/PW/2018
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 which will be valid for next six month.
4) Seized muddemal i.e. iron kada being worthless be destroyed
after appeal period is over.
5) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
Date : 04.08.2023 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Metropolitan Magistrate
ask 65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated &
typed on : 07.08.2023
Signed on : 07.08.2023
-- 8 of 8 --