Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018
C/S filed on : 19/06/2018
Registered on : 30/06/2018
Decided on : 02/09/2026
Duration : 08 Y 02 M 14 D
Exh. 13.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018 (C.R.No. 29/2018)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-006722-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018.
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: On 15/01/2018
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State (D.N.NAgar Police
Station in C.R. No. 29/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: Shrinivas Balkrishna
Rajkunda,
Age : 41 years,
R/o. Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon
(W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 279, 304-A of
IPC.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 02/09/2026
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 5 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. F. L. Shaikh.
The Ld. Advocate for accused : Shri. Shetty
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02/09/2026)
The prosecution was required to prove that on 15/01/2018
at 17.00 hours the accused drove his motorcar bearing No. MH-02-EH-
4633 at N.S. Phadke Road, New CD Barfiwala Road, Andheri (W), in
such manner so rash or negligent as to be likely to cause hurt or
endanger human life and caused death of informant’s daughter, not
amounting to culpable homicide.
2. The accused had pleaded innocence and trial commenced.
The defence of accused is total denial and false implication. He stuck to
his defence during his examination u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution story on 15/01/2018 at about 17.00
hours the deceased child whose age was about 5 years was proceeding
towards Juhu beach along-with her two aunts namely Yellamma Pujari
(PW1) and Manju Mallesh Dhangar (PW4) and three other children of
Yellamma. It is the case of the prosecution that while crossing the road
the child was being led by Yellamma Pujari (PW1) who was holding her
hand. Except Yellamma Pujari (PW1) there is no other other witness to
the accident as Manju Mallesh Dhangar (PW4) had already crossed the
road and she did not see the accident directly. Rather, she heard the cry
and noise from behind and when she turned back she noticed that the
child Laxmi was fallen on the road with injury on her head.
4. It is the case of prosecution that Yellamma Pujari (PW1)
-- 2 of 5 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018
states that she had firmly hold Laxmi’s hand and Laxmi was walking
just little behind of her very close to her feet at the time of crossing the
road and soon she started to cross the road, a car came from behind and
hit Laxmi. However, while under cross-examination, she was confronted
with her previous statement given to the police wherein she has stated
that Laxmi was pulling her hand ahead of her in haste to cross the road.
She denied that she made such statement before police. However, the
IO Anandrao Kashid who recorded her statement had firmly stated that
Yellamma Pujari (PW1) did mention him that Laxmi was pulling her
hand ahead of her in haste to cross the road.
5. As such it is undisputed in the present case that the
offending vehicle was MH-02-EH-4663 driven by accused. In order to
see whether the accused drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner
the spot panchanama is required to be scrutinized. The panchanama is
at Exh.6 proved through the IO Anandrao Kadhid (PW4) who has also
drawn sketch map. The conjoint reading testimonies of Yellamma Pujari
(PW1) and Manju Mallesh Dhangar (PW4) with the spot panchanama
and the hand sketch map attached to it shows that the spot of accident
is situated in between the N.S. Phadke Road and New CD Barfiwala
Road. The South bound of N.S. Phadke road runs East-West. New CD
Barfiwala Road runs North-South towards East bound. The distance
between the dividers of both these roads is 25 ft. While the deceased
Laxmi and witness Yellamma were crossing from N.S. Phadke Road
towards New CD Barfiwala Road, the accident took place just before the
distance of 10 ft. It is admitted fact that there was no Zebra crossing on
the road from where the witness was crossing the road. The accident
took place while the offending vehicle was running towards West on
-- 3 of 5 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018
South bound. The sketch map also shows that the spot of accident is
located at the place before the cutting of C.D.Barfiwala road. It implies
that the offending vehicle had crossed the area of C.D.Barfiwala road
and then it hit deceased Laxmi. It also appears that the accident took
place just near to the divider of N.S. Phadke Road which means the
victim was much before the middle of South bound of N.s. Phadke
Road.
6. In this context if the statement of Yellamma (PW1) given
on oath before the Court and her previous statement given to the police
is compared, there is variations regarding the fact whether the deceased
Laxmi was walking ahead pulling the hand of Yellamma or whether the
deceased Laxmi was walking slightly behind close to Yellamma at the
time of accident. Certainly, as deceased Laxmi was hit by the four
wheeler vehicle but, Yellamma was not even touched by the four
wheeler vehicle implies that her previous statement given to the police
that deceased Laxmi was pulling her hand ahead in haste to cross the
road is more probable. Apart from it, it is the statement of both Manju
(PW4) and Yellamma (PW1) that Manju had already crossed the road
and reached near Masjid which is located at the corner where New
C.D.Barfiwala Road starts. All of them were going to Juhu beach. The
haste of child to cross the road and to reach to another aunt i.e. Manju
(PW4) can be inferred from the circumstances appearing from record
and previous statement of Yellamma (PW1).
7. Yellamma (PW1) who is the sole witness has nowhere
described the manner of driving of vehicle by the accused. In absence of
specific statement by her, except the spot panchanama and attending
-- 4 of 5 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1776/PS/2018
circumstances which has come on record through the mouth of
witnesses is the only material to decide whether the accused was
driving either rashly or negligently. In the circumstances given above, it
does not appear to me that the accused was driving in a manner either
rash or negligent manner which resulted the death of Laxmi. As no
negligence or rashness in the driving by accused could be attributed to
him, he is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
In the result, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i Accused Shrinivas Balkrishna Rajkunda is
acquitted of the offences punishable under Section
279, 304-A of the IPC vide section 255 (1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii He shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/- under
section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
(S. G. Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 02/09/2026. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Di
9/10/2023
Dictated on : 02/09/2026.
Transcribed on : 02/09/2026.
Signed on : 02/09/2026.
-- 5 of 5 --