Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1
MHMM190080312018 Received On 14.08.2018
Registered On 14.08.2018
Delivered On 18.07.2026
Duration 07 Y. : 11 M. : 04 D
Part A *	Part A *
[Para 44 (i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]	[Para 44 (i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
Exhibit_________
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, ANDHERI	IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, ANDHERI
RAILWAY COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI	RAILWAY COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Shailja O. Pandey)	(Presided over by Shailja O. Pandey)
Details of FIR/Crime and
Police Station
Crime No.	Crime No.846 of 2018	846 of 2018
Andheri Railway Police Station, Mumbai	Andheri Railway Police Station, Mumbai
Date of Judgment 18.07.2026
Case No. C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
CNR.No.	CNR.No.MHMM190080312018	MHMM190080312018
Complainant/Prosecution State of Maharashtra,	State of Maharashtra,
Informant :	Informant :
Represented by Mr. A. B. Kamble	Mr. A. B. Kamble
(Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor)	(Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Accused Heramba Dattatray Desai	Heramba Dattatray Desai
Age : 37 years, Occ. :	Age : 37 years, Occ. :
R/o. Swapn Kutir, Vasai Road, Dist.	R/o. Swapn Kutir, Vasai Road, Dist.
Palghar	Palghar
Represented by P. S. Palekar
(Learned Defence Advocate)	(Learned Defence Advocate)
-- 1 of 11 --
2 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
Part B	Part B
Date of offence 14.05.2018
Date of F.I.R. 14.05.2018
Date of Charge-sheet 13.08.2018
Date of Framing of Charge/Particular 13.07.2023
Date of commencement of evidence 25.04.2024
Date of which judgment is reserved 18.07.2026
Date of judgment 18.07.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any ------
Accused Details	Accused Details
Ran
k of
the
accu
sed
Name of the
accused
Date of
arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offence
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during Trial for
purpose of
Section 428,
Cr.P.C.
1 Heramba	Heramba
Dattatray	Dattatray
Desai	Desai
14.05.2018 15.05.2018 354 D
of I.P.C.
Accused
is
acquitted
__ __
Abbreviations used in this Judgment (In alphabetical order)	Abbreviations used in this Judgment (In alphabetical order)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Criminal Code
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Evidence Act
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Penal Code
-- 2 of 11 --
3 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
Appendix	Appendix
Part C	Part C
[Para 44 (iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]	[Para 44 (iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES	LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:	A. Prosecution:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
PW.1 Shamshu Hussain Sayyed Panch Witness
PW.2 Jayshree Vithhalrao Mulgir Investigating Officer
P.W.3 Janardhan Hari Jadhav Investigating Officer
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS	LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution:	A. Prosecution:
Sr.No. Exhibit number Description
1. Exh.P-06 Panchanama
2. Exh.P-08 FIR
B. Defence :	B. Defence :
Sr.No. Exhibit number Description
1. --- ----
C. Court Exhibits :	C. Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exhibit number Description
1. Exh.P-03 Charge
2. Exh.P-12 313 of Cr. P. C. Statement
of accused
D. Material Objects:	D. Material Objects:
Sr. No. Material Object number Description
1 ------ ---------
-- 3 of 11 --
4 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered On 18th July 2026 )
The accused in the dock is prosecuted by Andheri
Railway Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 354
(D) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the indictment against the
accused runs as under :-
The informant is working as Assistant System Engineer
in TCS, Andheri and she is resident of Virar, District Palghar. She
used to travel by train from Virar to Andheri. On 14.05.2018 at
around 10:45 p.m. she was getting down from platform No.8 of
Andheri railway station and she was standing near staircase.
At that time one person was staring towards her
therefore she changed her place. The person was following her. He
even took videos of the informant in his mobile. The co-passenger
showed the videos recorded in the mobile of the accused to the
informant. Thereafter, they caught hold the accused and took him to
D. N. Nagar police station. D. N. Nagar police station referred them
to Andheri Railway police station. At police station the person
disclosed his name as Heramba Dattatray Desai. Thereafter the
informant lodged FIR against him for the offence punishable under
Section 354 (D) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the strength of said report, the Investigating Officer
of Andheri Railway Police Station registered crime vide C.R.
No.846/2018 for offence punishable under Section 354 (D) of the
-- 4 of 11 --
5 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer entered upon the
investigation. During the course of investigation, the investigating
officer arrested the accused, interrogated the witnesses and recorded
their statement, collected the necessary documents. As the
investigation revealed complicity of the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 354 (D) of the Indian Penal Code, charge-
sheet came to be lodged against him.
4. My learned predecessor has framed the charge against
the accused vide (Exh.3) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
for trial. By going through the cross-examination of the witnesses and
the statement of accused (Exh.12) under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
the defence of accused appears to be that of false implication.
5. In the light of the charge against the accused, the
evidence led by the prosecution, the cross-examination conducted by
the defence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C and
the rival submissions at the bar, the following points arise for my
determination, to which I have recorded my findings thereon with
reasons as follows :-
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the prosecution prove that on 14.05.2018
at about 10:45 hours at Staircase of platform
No.8 of Andheri Railway Station, Andheri,
Mumbai accused committed offence of stalking
by staring and making video of he informant by
following her despite a clear indication of
No.
-- 5 of 11 --
6 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
disinterest and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 354 (D) of Indian
Penal Code ?
2. What order ? .... Accused is acquitted.
: R E A S O N S :
6. To substantiate the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined in all three witnesses namely Panch Witness Shamshu
(P.W. No.1) (Exh.P-4), Investigating Officer Smt. Mulgir (P.W. No.2)
(Exh.P-05), Another Investigating Officer Shri. Jadhav (P.W. No.3)
(Exh.P-07) and also relied on report (Exh.P-08) and panchanama
(Exh.P-06). Thereafter, the prosecution closed the evidence. In
rebuttal, the accused has neither ventured in the witness box nor
examined any witness nor adduced any document. He totally relied
on the prosecution evidence to establish his defence, which consisted
of denial and false implication.
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
7. The Prosecution case is that, the accused has outraged
the modesty of the informant by stalking her. How far the prosecution
is able to prove the said fact can be answered by scrutinizing the
prosecution evidence on record. In the cases of outraging the
modesty of a woman, the best evidence is that of the woman herself
as she being the victim can depose about the incident. It is profitable
-- 6 of 11 --
7 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
to mention that in the instant matter, inspite of sufficient opportunity,
prosecution was unable to secure the presence of informant.
8. The summons report (Exh.10) discloses that now the
informant is resident of Sweden since last five years and she is not
interested to come back for the purpose of this case. Further, the
father of the informant Balaji Vitthalrao Avnurkar has filed pursis
(Exh.9), wherein he has informed that his daughter is resident of
Sweden and she is not inclined to come back for the purpose of this
case. Thus, the prosecution is unable to bring the best possible
evidence in the present matter. Now I have to consider that, whether
available evidence can connect the accused with the said crime.
9. Panch witness Shamshu (P.W. No.1) had not supported
the prosecution case. He deposed that police has seized one mobile
from the possession of the accused in his presence. However, he
denied the contents of the panchanama as true and correct. His
cross-examination consists of mere denial.
10. Investigating Officer Smt. Mulgir (P.W. No.2) deposed
that during investigation she has seized mobile phone from the
custody of co-passenger, who has seized the mobile from the custody
of the accused. Smt. Mulgir (P.W. No.2) identified the panchanama
(Exh.6). In the cross-examination the investigating officer admits
that she has not taken the siganture of the co-passenger who has
deposited the said mobile.
-- 7 of 11 --
8 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
11. Investigating officer Shri. Jadhav (P.W. No.3) deposed
that, on 14.05.2018 the informant along with two co-passengers
approached him at platform No.8 of Andheri railway station with the
complaint of stalking with another co-passenger. He further deposed
that he took them to Andheri railway police station wherein the
informant lodged report (Exh.8) in his presence. The cross-
examination consists of mere denials.
12. A multifold challenge was mounted by the Ld. defence
counsel against the prosecution case. Firstly, according to the Ld.
Counsel, the contents of the FIR are not proved as the the informant
is not examined and therefore the alleged incident is also not proved.
Secondly, not a single independent witness is examined who can
corroborate the prosecution case though the incident has taken place
at public place. Thirdly, the testimony of the investigating officer is of
formal nature as he is not an eye witness. Fourthly, there is nothing
record to show that, the accused has recorded the video of informant
in his mobile. Lastly, learned defence Counsel urged that accused be
acquitted.
13. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted with tenacity that the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond the shadow of doubt. There is overwhelming circumstantial
evidence to indicate the connection of accused to the said crime. He
further urged that, the prosecution has established the whole chain of
circumstances, which shows the involvement of the accused in this
crime. Therefore, he prayed that, the accused may be convicted.
-- 8 of 11 --
9 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
14. The accused is charged with the offence of stalking as
defined in section 354 (D) of the Indian Penal Code. Stalking as
defined under section 354 (D) occurs when man repeatedly
approaches a woman for the personal connection, even after the lady
has made it obvious that she is not interested in getting to know him.
This also covers online stalking as well which means monitoring her
uses of internet, email or other types of electronic communications.
15. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is clear that the
testimony of the informant and other co-passengers who have caught
the accused is not recorded. Thus, the prosecution was unable to
bring the best possible evidence on record without any sufficient
cause. Further, there is no statement of any independent witness,
though, the spot of incident was a public place. The testimony of
investigating officer is formal in nature as he is not the eye witness.
Further, there is nothing on record which can establish that the
accused has recorded the video of the informant in his mobile. The
testimony of panch witness Shamshu (P.W. No.1) and investigating
officer Smt. Mulgir (P.W. No.2) is silent on the aspect of video of
informant in the mobile of accused. In the result, the evidence which
has come on record is lacking in proving the ingredients of offence of
outraging the modesty of a woman. Thus, it is not proved that the
accused has outraged the modesty of informant by recording her
video in his mobile. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
-- 9 of 11 --
10 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :
16. Reverting to entire episode while parting with the
conclusion, the entire evidence of prosecution is insufficient on vital
aspect namely the presence of the accused on the spot and factum of
outraging the modesty of the informant. It is the cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to establish its own case
beyond reasonable doubt and every benefit of doubt must be given to
the accused. There is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with
the said crime. Thus, the only pave available for me is to give the
benefit of doubt to accused and in the result, I hold that prosecution
has failed to establish the charges levelled against accused. Thus, the
accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 354 (D)
of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, I pass the following order.
: O R D E R :
1. The accused Heramba Dattatray Desai is hereby
acquitted vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
the offence punishable under Section 354 (D) of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. His bail bond is cancelled. He be set at liberty.
3. The accused to execute P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/-
vide Section 437 – A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for appearance before the higher
court, if said court issues notice to him for his
-- 10 of 11 --
11 C. C. No.2160/PW/2018
State Vrs. Heramba Desai
Judgment
appearance in the matter in which present
judgment is challenged, if any.
Mumbai
Date : 18.07.2026
(Shailja O. Pandey)
Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Andheri Railway Court, Andheri,
Mumbai
upk/-
-- 11 of 11 --