Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: JUDGMENT 1 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
MHMM190086292018
Received on : 25.07.2018
Registered on : 25.07.2018
Decided on : 22.06.2023
Duration : 04Ys. 10M. 28Ds.
Exh. : 13
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No. 2008/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 27.11.2017
(c) The name of informant
(if any);
: The State (Sahar Police Station in
C. R. No. 364/2017).
(d) The names of the accused
persons, their parentage
and residence;
: 1)
2)
Sachin Shantaram Tambe,
Age : 40 years,
Occupation : Service.
R/at: Muktabai @ Mungibai
Chawl, near Sahar police
station, Sahar village,
Andheri(E), Mumbai
Sanjeev Khimji Shah
Age : 49 years
Occupation : Service.
R/at: Arjun House,
Tak Pakhadi, Road3, Sahar
Village, Andheri(E), Mumbai
...2/
-- 1 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 2 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
3) Vishwas Balkrishna
Marchande
Age : 53 years,
Occupation : Business
R/at: Balkrishna Marchande
Chawl, Tak Pakhadi, Road3,
Sahar Village, Andheri(E),
Mumbai.
e) The offences complained
of or proved ;
: Under Sections 454, 380, 506 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code
(f) The plea of the accused
and examination (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
(g) The final order; : Accused are acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 22.06.2023
APPEARANCE :
Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Khade for State.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Mangesh Pawar for the accused
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 22.06.2023 )
1. The above named accused persons stand charged for
having committed an offence punishable under Sections 454, 380, 506
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for the sake of brevity
hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.').
2. Facts germane to the prosecution case is abridged
thus :
That on 27.11.2017 at around 11.30 hrs. husband of
informant namely Megha Madhav Jangam received a phone call from
their neighbour Ramalu Naidu informing that Sachin Tambe broke
...3/
-- 2 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 3 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
open lock of their room which was in possession of motherinlaw and
sisterinlaw of informant and that he removed articles from said room.
After receiving information, the informant went there and found that
Sachin Shantaram Tambe and two unknown persons were present there
in the said room, but the articles were not there. That when she asked
the accused persons about the same, they told her that said room is
owned by them and his mother Sunita Tambe had rented out the room
to husband of informant. That they also threatened her and went away
after locking said room.
3. Consequently, the informant lodged report in respect of the
aforesaid incident with Sahar police station. On the basis of report C.R.
No.364/2017 was registered against the accused. Investigation of the
case was carried out by A.P.I. Shri. Mahesh Patil. After investigation he
found sufficient evidence against the accused, hence forwarded charge
sheet under supra sections.
4. Charges were famed against accused on 26.08.2022. They
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In view of above rival facts
following points arose for my determination and I record my findings
thereon with reasons thereof :
Sr. No. Points Findings
1] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of their common intention
committed house breaking by entering
into the house of informant situated at
...4/
-- 3 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 4 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
Muktabai Chawl, Room No.12, Indian Oil
Road, Talav Pakhadi, Sahar Village,
Andheri(E), Mumbai, which used as a
human dwelling in the possession of
informant, in order to commit offence
punishable with imprisonment and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 454 r/w 34 of I.P.C ? In the negative.
2] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of their common intention
committed theft of property i.e. old
utensils and iron cupboard in house used
for human dwelling and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 380 r/w 34 of the IPC? In the negative.
3] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of their common intention
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the informant and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 506 r/w 34 of the IPC? In the negative.
4] What order ? As per final order.
...5/
-- 4 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 5 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
R E A S O N S
5. Prosecution in the instant case has examined two
witnesses, whereas the defence did not examine any witness in support
of his defence. Prosecution examined informant Smt. Megha Jangam
as PW No.1 vide Exh04 and Investigating Officer Shri. Mahesh Patil as
PW No.2 vide Exh08. Heard both sides.
AS TO POINT Nos.1 to 3 :
6. PW No.1 informant testified at Exh8 that in the month of
November2017 theft committed at her house in her absence. She
didn't know who committed theft. Further it is contended that she was
informed by neighbour on telephone regarding the incident and when
she went to her house, she found all articles missing.
7. In the crossexamination PW No.1 admitted that she had
lodged report on misrepresentation. Further it is admitted by her that
they have settled civil dispute before the Hon'ble City Civil Court and
she doesn't have any grudge against accused.
8. PW No.2 testified that he registered crime and investigated
the matter. Further it is contended that while recording FIR the
informant disclosed name of one of the accused and nothing was seized
from the spot. It is further contended that while recording statement of
informant as per her say, she disclosed names of other two accused. He
arrested accused Sachin and other two accused were on Anticipatory
bail and nothing was recovered from them.
9. In the crossexamination he admitted that names of
...6/
-- 5 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 6 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
accused were disclosed to the informant by third person. Further it is
admitted that there is no seizure in the crime.
10. PW No.1 informant is a key witness, however, she
completely turned hostile. Despite searching crossexamination
prosecution failed to bring anything on record, which could disclose the
complicity of accused persons in the alleged crime. PW No.2, the
Investigating Officer admitted in the crossexamination that nothing
was seized from the spot and nothing was recovered from them.
Further, the person who informed the informant was a prime witness.
However, he has not been examined by the prosecution. Being there
nothing incriminating against accused persons, prosecution failed to
prove the charge. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the
negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 4 :
11. Since the point Nos. 1 to 3 are determined in the
negative, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are
liable to be acquitted. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
1. Accused No. 1) Sachin Shantaram Tambe, Age : 40 years, r/at:
Muktabai @ Mungibai Chawl, near Sahar police station, Sahar
village, Andheri(E), Mumbai; 2) Sanjeev Khimji Shah Age :
49 years, r/at: Arjun House, Tak Pakhadi, Road3, Sahar Village,
Andheri(E), Mumbai and 3) Vishwas Balkrishna Marchande,
Age : 53 years, r/at: Balkrishna Marchande Chawl, Tak Pakhadi,
...7/
-- 6 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 7 C.C.NO.2008/PW/2018
Road3, Sahar Village, Andheri(E), Mumbai are hereby acquitted
vide Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under
Sections 454, 380 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The earlier P.R. bonds of accused stand cancelled.
3. The accused to furnish P.R. of Rs.5,000/ each in compliance to
section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
(Judgment dictated on dais and pronounced in open court).
Date.: 22.06.2023
(J. W. Gaikwad)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai
csj
Typed on : 23.06.2023
Signed on : 01.07.2023
.../
-- 7 of 7 --