Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: – 1 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
Received on : 04/05/2018
Registered on : 10/09/2018
Decided on : 05/11/2022
Duration : 04 Y. 06 M. 01 D.
Exh. : 09
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
CNR NO.MHMM190090352018
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.1513/PS/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 11/12/2016
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in Spl. LAC No.
118/2016).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: 1] Rinky Ramchandra
Karmakar,
Age 43 Yrs.
Occupation Nil
R/o. Flat No.3,
Krshna Apartment,
Near Louis School Road,
Char Bangala,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2. Tirupati Kismaya
Lingampalli,
Age – 30 Yrs.
Occupation – SOS Driver.
R/o.Sukhshanti Welfare
Society,
Bhagatsingh Nagar No.1,
-- 1 of 7 --
– 2 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
Tiwari Chawl, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 11 (1) (A) (1) of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act
r/w. Section 7 of Animal Birth
Control, 2001 r/w. Section 119
of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : The accused no.1 and 2 are
acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 05/11/2022
Ms. Seema Mokal, APP for the State.
Mr. Pradeep Shetty, Advocate for both
accused.
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 05/11/2022 )
The accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 11 (1) (A) (1) of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act r/w.
Section 7 of Animal Birth Control, 2001 r/w. Section 119 of
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20/10/2016 while
vaccination work was doing by informant at Veera Desai Road and
Andheri (W) area. Her friend namely Aban Mistry meet her and told at
Joseph Patelwadi, Sat Bangala, Andheri (W), Mumbai, one black colour
dog was dislocated from his back legs and you do arrangement of its
accommodation. She reply her we do arrangement at Society For
-- 2 of 7 --
– 3 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
Prevention of Cruelty of Animal, Parel, Mumbai. Thereafter, on 11th
December her friend told, in the 1st week of December, at night some
boys are gave trouble to that dog. Therefore, it is feared and hidden at
one bungalow. On 11/12/2016 informant along with her went to
search the dog and came to know that in that area one lady by name
Rinky Karmalkar had taken the dog and leave at Lokhandwala Back
road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Therefore, informant lodged report
against the accused.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, Spl. LAC
No. 118/2016 came to be registered against the accused persons. I.O.
arrested both the accused. During further investigation I.O. recorded
statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, I.O. filed
chargesheet.
4. My learned predecessor framed charge against the accused
for the above mentioned offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in
total. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure came to be recorded. The defence of the accused is
that of total denial.
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the accused
no.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common
intention subject to do not care the black
dog, not behave well with it as a cruelty and
send it to another place from his residence?
In the negative
-- 3 of 7 --
– 4 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
2] What order ? The accused
no.1 and 2 are
acquitted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
6. Dr. Nandini Vijaykumar Kulkarni, informant (P.W.1)
deposed at Exh.3 that incident occurred in the first week of December,
2016. They have started vaccination for street dog. One Aban Mistry
had told me that in the Joseph Patel Wadi there was one dog who was
handicap and he could not run or walk. She was feeding the said dog.
The children were always harassed the said dog. Therefore, she has
called to P.S.P. Hospital, Parel. On 11/12/2016 Aban told her that the
said dog was not found and she got information that the said dog was
taken by Save Our Steerage Committee. Thereafter, she started inquiry
of the dog. Rinki Karmarkar has informed her that the said dog was
transferred to another area and she will inform where he was drop.
Thereafter, she went to police station and filed FIR against Rinky
Karmakar and her driver.
7. During her crossexamination she admitted that Rinky
Karmakar has also involved in NGO who taking care of street dog. She
also admitted that accused Rinky Karmakar is involved in helping the
street dog since 20 years and running committee. She stated that Aban
Mistry is my professional friend. She further admitted that Aban Mistry
had informed her that the dog was not found. She denied that there
was not any conversation between her and accused Rinky Karmakar.
She further denied that she had filed false FIR on the say of Aban
-- 4 of 7 --
– 5 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
Mistry.
8. Aban Jehangir Mistry, (P.W.2) deposes at Exh.5 that she
and accused are involved in the work of welfare of animal. In the
month of December, 2016 there was one dog who was handicap in their
area Joseph Patel Wadi. Children were harassed him and pelted stone
on him. She informed the said fact to Kulkarni madam but the said dog
was not found. He was taken by van. She asked driver of van but he
was not given any information. When she inquired one Zara Madam.
She informed her that the said dog was dropped at back street road,
Lokhandwala but they have not find the said dog. Kulkarni Madam had
lodged the FIR against Rinky Madam. Police had recorded her
statement.
9. During her crossexamination she stated that she had
known the fact after two days that dog was taken by the van. She
admitted that she had not seen who was taken the said dog. Zara
Madam had told her that the said dog was taken by the van SOS and
not Rinky Madam. She have no personal knowledge about the dog.
10. Sadanand Bharat Pote, Investigating Officer (P.W.3)
deposes at Exh,6 that Dr. Nandini Kulkarni came to police station. On
17/12/2016 he was station officer at Versova. As per her complaint he
lodged the FIR against the accused. Thereafter, he had recorded the
statement of witnesses. Therefore, he filed chargesheet against the
accused.
11. During his crossexamination he admitted that informant
has not seen actual incident of dislocate of dog. He further admitted
-- 5 of 7 --
– 6 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
that in his investigation there is no any details of dog or information
about the dog is revealed. He also admitted that nobody has stated
about the place of incident therefore he had not carried out the spot
panchanama. He denied that the accused has no concerned with this
crime and he had filed false chargesheet against her.
12. I have gone through the record. Though sufficient
opportunity were given to the prosecution, they failed to examine other
witnesses. No any incriminating evidence came on record against the
accused persons during evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution
failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. Hence,
I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :
13. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused persons.
Therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted. In the result, in
answer to Point No.2, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused no.1 Rinky Ramchandra Karmakar and accused
no.2 Tirupati Kismaya Lingampalli are acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 11 (1) (A) (1) of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act r/w. Section 7 of Animal Birth
Control, 2001 r/w. Section 119 of Maharashtra Police Act,
1951 vide Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
-- 6 of 7 --
– 7 – C.C.No.4401513/PS/2018
3 The accused no.1 and 2 to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each vide Section 437–A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for appearance before the
higher court, if said court issues notice to them for their
appearance.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
(A. I. Shaikh)
Date : 05.11.2022 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed on : 05/11/2022
Signed on : 05/11/2022
-- 7 of 7 --