Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
Filed on .. 12.09.2018
Registered on .. 12.09.2018
Delivered on .. 03.09.2024
Duration .. 05Y 11M 21D
CNR No.MHMM190091432018
Exh.12
IN THE COURT JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
65th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: C.C. No.2543/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
On 21.05.2018
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through PSO Vile Parle Police
Station (CR No.179/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: Pramila Prakash Chavan – 54 yrs
Occupation : Nil
R/o.: Room No.15, Satam Chawl,
Shivaji Nagar, Vile Parle, Mumbai
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec. 324,323,504 of the Indian
Penal Code
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : Accused is acquitted
(h) The date of such order; : 03.09.2024
Appearance : Ld. APP. Samrat Patil for the State
Ld. Adv. M.R. Rangnekar for the accused
-- 1 of 9 --
2 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 03.09.2024)
1. Accused has been chargesheet ed for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 324,323,504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The prosecution case in short is as follows :
On 21.05.2018 at 3.30 pm, in front of Room No.14, Satam
Chawl, in front of Chamunda Building, Shivaji Nagar, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai accused Pramila Chavan quarreled with the informant viz.
Sarita Subhash Sawant while she was returning from public toilet.
Accused also pulled the informant and banged her head on the iron grill
of window. Therefore, the informant sustained injury on her head. She
also abused the informant and assaulted with the hands. Thereafter,
informant lodged complaint against the accused. On the basis of
complaint Vile Parle Police station has registered an offence bearing
Crime No.179/2018. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer
recorded statement of witnesses, prepared spot panchanama as well as
seizure panchanama, collected medical certificate from Jeevan Vikas
Kendra, Sadanand Danait Hospital, Mumbai. After completion of
investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused.
2. My Learned Predecessor has framed charge against the
accused vide Exh.2 and it read over and explained to accused in
vernacular, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Her
defence is of total denial and false implication.
-- 2 of 9 --
3 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
3. As incriminating evidence came against the accused hence,
statement of accused U/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is recorded
at Exh.7. Defence of accused is total denial and false implication.
4. Following points arise for my determination and I have
recorded findings thereon for the reasons discussed herein after :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does prosecution prove that on 21.05.2018 at
3.30 pm, in front of Room No.14, Satam
Chawl, in front of Chamunda Building, Shivaji
Nagar, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai voluntarily
caused hurt to the informant viz. Sarita
Subhash Sawant by banging her head on iron
grill of window ?
...Not
proved
2 Does prosecution prove that on the above date,
time & place, accused voluntarily caused hurt
to the informant by hands ?
..Not
proved
3 Does prosecution prove that on the above date,
time & place, accused insulted the informant
by words and knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause informant to break
public peace ?
...Not
proved
4 What order ? Accused is
acquitted
R E A S O N S
As to points No. 1 to 4 :
5. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined in all four witnesses to viz. The Informant P.W. No.1 Sarita
-- 3 of 9 --
4 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
Subhash Sawant at Exh.4, brotherinlaw of informant P.W. No.2
Surendra Dattaram Sawant at Exh.6 and daughter of informant P.W.
No.3 Nikita Subhash Sawant at Exh.8 and the investigating officer
P.W.No.4 Kishor Manohar Doijad at Exh.7.
6. Ld. APP submitted that by examining the informant and other
witnesses prosecution proves it's case beyond reasonable doubt against
the accused therefore accused be punished according to law.
7. On the contrary, Ld. Advocate for accused submitted that
there is no any cogent and reliable evidence come on record against the
accused to show their guilt. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the
guilt of accused. Moreover, there is variance between evidence of the
witnesses. Therefore, accused be acquitted.
8. In the present case, the prosecution has examined the
informant i.e. P.W. No.1 Sarita Subhash Sawant at Exh. 4. P.W. No.1
Sarita Subhash Sawant deposed that she didn't remember the date of
the incident. The incident took place in front of door of her house. The
incident took place between her and accused. At the time of incident,
accused pushed her and dashed to iron grill of window and thereby she
sustained bleeding injury and she became unconscious. Thereafter, she
got admitted in Jeevan Vikas Kendra Hospital. On next day, she lodged
FIR Exh.5 against the accused.
9. During the crossexamination, she stated that she narrated to
the police that the incident took place in front of her house while giving
the complaint. She cannot assign any reason as to why said fact not
mentioned by the police in her statement. She has denied all the
suggestions putforth to her.
-- 4 of 9 --
5 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
10. P.W. No.3 Nikita Subhash Sawant who is daughter of
informant stated that she didn't remember the date of incident. At the
time of incident, her mother was returning from public toilet. That time
she was present in the house. She had heard some noise, therefore, she
came out and saw accused Pramila Chavan quarreled with her mother
and was abusing her mother. When she has intervened the quarrel, that
time accused raised the hand and banged her mother's head on iron grill
of window. Due to such act, her mother got unconscious and fell down.
The blood was oozing from the head of her mother. Her mother was
admitted in Jivan Vikas Hospital. During her crossexamination, she
stated that her maternal aunt Meenakshi Rane was present while she
was carrying her mother to the hospital. Her mother was conscious. She
has categorically admitted that her mother told to the Doctor about the
injury that she sustained injury due to fell down at her home.
11. During the crossexamination, she further stated the police
has not seized Saree (lkMh) of her mother through panchanama. She
categorically admitted that usually the quarrel took place between
accused and the informant.
12. P.W. No.2 Surendra Dattaram Sawant deposed that the
informant is wife of his brother. This witness has not supported to the
prosecution case, therefore, his testimony cannot be considered.
13. In the present matter, the prosecution has examined
P.W.No.4 Kishor Manohar Doijad who was the investigating officer. He
deposed that on 23.05.2018 he was attached to Vile Parle Police Station
as a API. On that day his duty hours 8.00 pm to 8.00 am as a PSO. On
-- 5 of 9 --
6 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
that night one telephonic message received to police station therefore,
he alongwith another constable went to the Sadanand Danait Hospital,
Jeevan Vikas Kendra. In the said hospital one lady viz. Sarita Subhash
Sawant narrated to him the episode of incident that accused Pramila
caused injury on her head by pulling her hairs and banged her head
towards iron grill of window, therefore, she sustained injury on her
forehead. Accused also used filthy language to the informant. He
recorded the complaint of informant at Exh.8 as per her narration. He
further deposed that the informant sustained injury on her forehead and
seven stitches have done on her forehead.
14. He further deposed that during the course of investigation,
he has recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the spot
panchanama at Exh.9 and arrested the accused under panchanama. He
has collected the medical certificate of Sadanand Danait Hospital,
Jeevan Vikas Kendra and after completion of investigation filed charge
sheet in the Court.
15. During the crossexamination he has stated that before
recording the statement of P.W.No. Sarita, he did not obtain fitness
certificate of the injured person from the doctor. FIR also doesn't bear
signature of informant. This witness has categorically admitted that
injured i.e. informant sustained injury due to fell down at home as such
fact mentioned in the medical certificate of Sadanand Danait Hospital,
Jeevan Vikas Kendra. He further admitted that the informant did not
show him daubed clothes. He also did not visit the house of informant to
prepare the panchanama. He also did not record the statement of Nikita
Subhash Sawant on the very same day of incident.
-- 6 of 9 --
7 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
16. Upon considering the evidence of prosecution, the most
important point is that P.W.No.1 Sartia Sawant and P.W.No 3 Nikita
Subhash Sawant are blood relatives, therefore, the evidence of these
witnesses scrutinized by this Court very minutely. P.W.No.1 informant
Sarita Sawant as well as P.W.No.3 Nikita Subhash Sawant did not state
the date of incident. Both these witnesses did not state the abusive
words stated by the accused to the informant. P.W.No.1 informant
Sarita Sawant has stated that no one was present at the time of incident,
but P.W.No.3 Nikita Subhash Sawant has stated that she as well as her
aunt Meenakashi Rane were present at the time of incident, therefore,
the evidence of P.W.No.1 regarding presence of other witnesses on the
spot appears to be doubtful.
17. Prosecution has examined P.W.No.1 Sartia Sawant to prove
her complaint lodged against accused. In order to prove her complaint,
the informant P.W.No.1 Sartia Sawant has stated before the Court that
accused pushed her and also caused hurt by means of hands and by
banging her head on iron grill of window. However, P.W.No.4 the
investigating officer has stated that the informant P.W.No.1 Sartia
Sawant stated to the Doctor about the injury. The informant P.W.No.1
Sartia Sawant told to the doctor that she sustained injury due to fell
down at her home and such fact mentioned by the Doctor in the medical
certificate. Moreover, P.W.No.3 Nikita Subhash Sawant also admitted
that her mother i.e. Sarita Sawant told the Doctor that she sustained
injury due to fell down at her home.
18. In the present case, the prosecution has filed the medical
certificate in the chargesheet. I have perused the medical certificate dtd.
-- 7 of 9 --
8 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
10.08.2018 issued by Dr. Shri. B.H. Pandey of Sadanand Danait
Hospital, Jeevan Vikas Kendra. In the said medical certificate, it is
mentioned that “ the patient i.e. Mrs. Sarita Sawant had attended OPD
on 21.05.2018 for complaints of head injury due to fell at home at 5.30
pm”. From the said evidence and document, it appears that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused caused injury to the
informant.
19. The investigating officer i.e. P.W.No.4 has stated that he did
not visit the house of the informant to prepare the panchanama. P.W.
No.4 did not state the contents of spot panchanama. Thus, the
prosecution has not proved the spot panchanama in accordance with the
provisions of law.
20. Considering the above discussion, I come to the conclusion
from the evidence of prosecution that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant
and also abused the informant. So far as the evidence on record is
concerned, the evidence of P.W.No.1 is not consistent, reliable and
trustworthy. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused
beyound all reasonable doubt. With these observations, I answered
points No.1 to 3 are in the negative and for answering point No.4, I pass
following order :
ORDER
1) Accused viz. Pramila Prakash Chavan is acquitted vide
Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable
U/Sec.324,323,504 of the Indian Penal Code.
-- 8 of 9 --
9 Judgment in C. C. No.2543/PW/2018
2) Bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
3) Accused is directed to furnish P.B. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/
for appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, in case
appeal is filed against the judgment of this Court vide Section
437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
4) Judgment dictated & declared in an open Court.
sd/
Date. 03.09.2024 (Hashmi H.A.H.I.)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
Dictated &
typed on : 03.09.2024
Signed on : 03.09.2024
-- 9 of 9 --