Final Order 4

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 1 of 8 JUDGMENT
MHMM190068532018
Received on :- 29.06.2018
Registered on :- 29.06.2018
Decided on :- 01.01.2026
Duration :- 07Ys. 06M. 03Ds.
Exh. :- 12
Part ‘A’
[Para 44(i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
(Presided over by : Dr. Ms. G. D. Nirmale, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.22. Andheri, Mumbai)
Decided on :- 01.01.2026
Criminal Case No.1746/PW/2018
FIR No.
Police Station
241/2017
Sahar Police Station
COMPLAINANT State of Maharashtra
Through :-
Sahar Police Station
REPRESENTED
BY
A.P.P. Mr. K. S. Jamdhade, for the State.
ACCUSED
1) Praful @ Pappu Balu Waghmare
Age :- 40 years, Occupation :- Driver
R/o.: Plot No.38, M Line,
Room No.6, Gowandi,
Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 2 of 8 JUDGMENT
2)
3)
Balu Chandrakant Waghmare
Age :- 69 years, Occupation :- Driver
R/o.: Plot No.38,
M Line, Room No.6, Gowandi,
Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai.
Rehan Ayub Shaikh
Age :- 34 years, Occupation :- Driver
R/o.: New Bhim Nagar,
Transit Camp, Devnar Municipal Colony,
Gowandi, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED
BY
Advocate Mr. Mangesh More, for the accused.
Part ‘B’
[Para 44(ii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
Date of Offence 10.08.2017
Date of F.I.R. 10.08.2017
Date of Chargesheet 29.06.2018
Date of Framing of Charges 10.11.2025
Date of commencement of evidence 10.11.2025
Date on which Judgment is reserved 01.01.2026
Date of the Judgment 01.01.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any --
-- 2 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 3 of 8 JUDGMENT
Accused Details
Rank of
accused
Name of
accused
Date
of
Arrest
Date of
Release
on Bail
Offences
charged with
Whether
acquitted or
convicted
Sentence imposed Period of
Detention
Undergone
during Trial
for purpose
of Section
428, Cr.P.C.
1. Praful @
Pappu Balu
Waghmare
10.08.
2017
10.08.
2017
324, 34 of
IPC
Acquitted. -- --
2. Balu
Chandrakant
Waghmare
10.08.
2017
10.08.
2017
324, 34 of
IPC
Acquitted. -- --
3. Rehan Ayub
Shaikh 10.08.
2017
10.08.
2017
324, 34 of
IPC
Acquitted. -- --
Part 'C'
[Para 44(iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER
WITNESS)
PW1/Exh. 05 Shrirang Ishwar Bele Informant/injured
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER
WITNESS)
- - -
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER
WITNESS)
- - -
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit- 06 & 07 / PW-01 Signature on the FIR & printed FIR
-- 3 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 4 of 8 JUDGMENT
B. Defence :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
- - -
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
- - -
D. Material Objects :
Sr. No. Material Object Number
Description
1
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 01.01.2026)
1. The accused are arraigned for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for the sake of brevity
hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.').
Facts germane to the prosecution case are abridged thus :-
2. The daughter of informant namely Rohini was married to
accused No. 1. Accused No.2 is father of accused No.1. On 07.08.2017
Rohini visited her maternal home on occasion of festival ‘Raksha
Bandhan’. Accused No.1 had instructed Rohini to return to matrimonial
home on the next day, but for some reason Rohini could not return as per
his instructions. On 09.08.2017 wife of the informant went to drop
Rohini at her in-laws place, that time accused No.1, started bickering
about the delay. Informant’s wife exhorted the accused and returned
home after leaving Rohini there.
3. On 10.10.2017 at about 12:30 a.m. the accused visited the
house of informant and started squabbling about Rohini’s behaviour and
-- 4 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 5 of 8 JUDGMENT
created ruckus. Nephew of informant started the flash light of her mobile
as it was dark outside, that time accused misconceived it as video
recording and tried to snatch her mobile. A stranger accompanying the
accused No.1 inflicted a kick blow to the son of informant. Accused Nos.
1 & 2 started hurling abuses. Accused No.2 assaulted the informant and
bit his cheek. Thereafter the accused fled from the spot. The informant
then lodged the report after obtaining treatment.
4. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant Crime
No. 241/2017, under Sections 323, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the
IPC was registered with Sahar Police Station, and work of investigation
was carried out by P.S.I. Mrs. Kavita Naik of Sahar police station.
5. During investigation police visited the place of occurrence,
prepared panchanamas, arrested the accused, recorded the statements of
witnesses and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
Charge :-
6. Accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried when
charge (Exh-04) was read over and explained to him in vernacular.
Evidence for Prosecution :-
7. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
prosecution examined informant Shrirang Ishwar Bele as PW No.1 vide
Exh-05.
Defence :-
8. From the scrutiny of the cross examination and answers
given by the accused during the statement recorded under Section 313
Cr. P. C. (Exh-09 to Exh-11), it appears that defence of accused is of
denial and false accusations. However, no evidence is led in defence.
-- 5 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 6 of 8 JUDGMENT
Points for determination:
9. Perused the evidence on record. Heard learned advocate Mr.
K. S. Jamdhade for the prosecution and Mr. Mangesh More, learned
counsel for the accused.
10. In view of offence charged against the accused, following
points arise for determination the finding and reasons for which are
recorded as under :-
Sr. No.
Points
Findings
1] Whether the prosecution has proved that,
accused voluntarily caused hurt to the
informant by taking bit on his cheek?
No.
2] What order ? Accused stands
acquitted.
-: REASONS :-
Point Nos.1 & 2 :-
11. In order to prove the charge leveled against the accused
prosecution has examined one witness, Mr. Shrirang Ishwar Bele (PW
No.1 Exh-05) as the informant and injured. Testimony of this witness
shows that, even though he is the person to whom the alleged wrong is
caused he did not support the prosecution case.
12. At the outset it is necessary to mention that, the informant
and accused filed a joint application vide Exhibit 02 stating that, they
have arrived at a compromise outside the Court and they sought
permission to compound the matter. As offences under Sections 323 &
504 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable vide Section 320(2) of
-- 6 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 7 of 8 JUDGMENT
Cr.P.C., the accused were acquitted of these offences vide section 320(8)
Cr.P.C, and the matter proceeded for offence under section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code.
13. In this backdrop the evidence of the informant has been
recorded. While deposing the informant stated nothing against the
accused which would prove the charges leveled against them. The
informant stated that, on day of incident only altercation took place
between them. This witness deposed that two strangers slapped him and
someone bit him on the cheek but he could not see the assailant due to
darkness. The informant also denied the contents of report on the basis
of which crime was registered. Despite being subjected to detailed cross
examination nothing favourable for prosecution could be elicited from
this witness. Hence, the FIR itself is not proved. After the testimony of
informant, who is injured prosecution has filed evidence close purshis
vide exhibit-08.
14. In such situation there is no evidence on record against the
accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under
Section 324 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt for want of evidence.
Hence point No.1 is answered in the negative. In result the following
order is passed.
ORDER
1) Accused No.1) Praful @ Pappu Balu Waghmare Aged : 40 years;
accused No.2) Balu Chandrakant Waghmare, Age :- 69 years, and
accused No.3) Rehan Ayub Shaikh Age :- 34 years, are hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, vide Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal
-- 7 of 8 --
C.C.NO. 1746/PW/2018 8 of 8 JUDGMENT
Procedure, 1973.
2) Bail bonds of accused stand canceled. However the accused
shall furnish fresh PB and SB of Rs.7,500/- (Rs.Seven Thousand
Five Hundred only) each towards compliance of section 437-A
of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3) These bonds shall remain in force for six months from the date
of this Order.
Date.:- 01.01.2026
(Ms. G. D. Nirmale)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 8 of 8 --