Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
Filed on .. 18/08/2018
Registered on .. 18/08/2018
Delivered on .. 01/01/2019
Duration .. 00Y04M13D
CNR Number : MHMM190081522018
Exh. 9
IN THE COURT OF 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.C.PATHARE)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: 2209/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
: On 17.02.2018 at about 22.30
hours.
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through P. S. O. Andheri Police
Station.
(CR No. 84/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Samir Mukram Shaikh.
Age : 23 years.
R/o. Room No.11,
Mangalmurti Society,
Malad(W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.392 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 operative part.
h) The date of such order; : 01/01/2019.
Appearance : Ld. APP. Shri. Nandgiri for the State.
Ld. Adv. Shri. Dilip Patil for the Accused.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 01.01.2019)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 392 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. (for short “IPC”).
Factual Matrix :
Informant lady was travelling by Auto rickshaw on
17.02.2018 at about 22.30 hours, that time, she was holding her bag
containing her articles in it. Two persons wearing helmets came on a
motorcycle and snatched the said bag. Informant tried to chase said
persons in that auto rickshaw but, in vain. Thereafter, she went to
police station and lodged report.
2. On the basis of it, crime came to be registered. The police
recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared memorandum cum spot
panchanama, on completion of investigation, chargesheet ed the
accused.
3. Charge is framed vide Exh.2. The same was read over and
explained to accused in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false
implication.
4. Following points arose for my determination & I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed infra:
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proved that on
17.02.2018 at about 22.30 hours, in front of
Divine school, AndheriKurla road, Andheri
East, Mumbai, Accused committed theft of
-- 2 of 6 --
3 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
handbag having one mobile,Adhar vard,
voter card, ATM card, cash amount all total
worth Rs.34,500/ from informant between
sunset and sunrise ? ..Not
proved.
2 What order ? As Per
operative
part.
R E A S O N S
As to point No. 1 :
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined total three witnesses. PW1 Juliet Kutino (informant) is
examined at Exh.4, PW2 Tajuddin Kutti (Memorandum and spot
panch) is examined at Exh.6. Lastly PW3 Sanjay Gholve (Investigating
Officer) is examined at Exh.8.
6. Accused was in jail from 24.07.2018 till 27.09.2018. PW 1 &
PW2 have not adduced sufficient material against the accused. Hence
by passing order below Exh.1, further evidence is closed and matter is
being decided finally.
7. PW1 being informant/victim/ sole eye witness deposed that
while she was traveling in auto rickshaw, two persons came on a bike.
Out of that, the pillion rider snatched her bag containing her articles
including cash of Rs.2000/. She also deposed that her mangalsutra
was also stolen in the said incident. She tried to chase those persons
but they fled away. In the chief examination, itself she fairly admitted
that she cannot identify the accused as she did not see their faces on the
spot. She further clarified that at the time of incident, there was
-- 3 of 6 --
4 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
darkness., due to that also she cannot identify the accused.
8. When the star witness is unable to identify accused in that
event there remains nothing in the prosecution case. Apart from that,
PW1 in the cross examination replied that she does not know number of
said rickshaw and the said motorcycle.
9. According to prosecution, in presence of panch witness,
i.e.PW2, accused had admitted his guilt. Therefore, by taking accused
on the spot, such panchanama was prepared at the instance of the
accused. Per contra, PW2 deposed that he does not know the contents
of the panchanama. Apart from that, he gave fatal admission in favour
of the defence by answering that panchanama Exh. 7 was prepared in
the police station. He fairly admitted that nothing was seized by the
police from the accused in his presence.
10. According to prosecution, PW3 was present with the
Investigation Officer Mr. Patil. However, perusal of record, it shows
that none of the documents of this case is signed by the PW3. PW3
being police constable is expected to try to support the prosecution case.
However, when testimonies of material witnesses viz PW1 and 2 are
found of no use to record conviction against the accused in that event,
testimony of PW3 loses its importance.
In short, there is absence of clear, cogent or reliable evidence
against the accused.
11. It is the settled position of law that prosecution has to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However,
in the present case, it has failed to do so. In view of the above peculiar
facts, circumstances and evidence, accused is found entitled to the
-- 4 of 6 --
5 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answered above points in the negative
and proceed to pass infra order :
ORDER
i) Accused1 named above stands acquitted of the offence
punishable U/Sec.392 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC vide the provisions of
section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
ii) His bail bonds (if any) are cancelled.
iii) Dictated & declared in the open Court.
Sd/
Date : 01.01.2019. (S.C. Pathare)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
1 Named /described in the schedule at page No.1 of this judgment at Sr.No.(d).
-- 5 of 6 --
6 C. C. NO.2209/PW/2018
“I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Judgment are
same word for word as per original Judgment.
Name of Steno : A.S. Kubal
Court Name : S.C. Pathare,Metropolitan Magistrate, 65th Court,
Andheri, Mumbai.
Judgment signed by Presiding Officer on : 01.01.2019.
Judgment uploaded on : 02.01.2019.
-- 6 of 6 --