Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
Received on : 10/09/2018
Registered on : 10/09/2018
Decided on : 03/07/2023
Duration : 04 Y. 09 M. 23 D.
Exh. : 06
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SUJITKUMAR C. TAYDE)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
CNR NO.MHMM190092532018
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 25/02/2018
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Versova Police
Station in C. R. No. 87/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Hitesh Prabhakar Mahadik,
Age – 23 Yrs.
Occupation Nil,
R/o.Room No.214, Juhu Ekta
New Kapas Wadi,
Versova Link Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 279, 338 of the
Indian Penal Code r/w. Section
134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle
Act.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; The accused is acquitted.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 8 --
2 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
(h) The date of such order; : 03/07/2023
Learned advocate for the State Smt.Seema Mokal
Learned advocate for the accused – Shri D. D. Kerkar
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 03/07/2023. )
The accused stands prosecuted for having committed the
offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code
r/w. Section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. The informant/complainant namely Dhananjay Uttamrao
Bhaskar lodged the report to the Police Station Versova against the
accused interalia alleging that on 25/02/2018 at about 19.30 hrs., near
Kokilaben Hospital, Gate No.1, Andheri, accused caused grievous injury
to his wife namely Mansi by driving motor cycle bearing registration
No.MH02EB3077. It is further alleged that the accused ran away
from the spot of incident without providing medical aid to his injured
wife.
3. On getting the information, the offence punishable under
sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (B) of the
Motor Vehicle Act was registered against the accused vide Crime
No.87/2018 and the further investigation was handed over to Police
Inspector Vijay Raskar who prepared the spot panchanama and
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 8 --
3 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
recorded the statements of the witnesses. He collected the relevant
medical certificates and documents.
4. Having completed the investigation, the chargesheet came
to be filed under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. against the accused for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 of the Indian
Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
5. Having secured the presence of the accused, all the
documents filed alongwith the chargesheet were supplied to the
accused under Section 207 of Cr. P.C.
6. The charge for the offence punishable under section 279,
338 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle
Act was read over to the accused. He did not plead guilty. Hence, the
trial was conducted.
7. In the back drop of the prosecution case and the evidence
placed on record, the following points are formulated for my
determination. I record my findings thereon in the light of the evidence
led by the prosecution as under:
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that on
25/02/2018 at about 19.30 hrs., near
Kokilaben Hospital, Gate No.1, Andheri,
Mumbai, accused drove his vehicle bearing
registration No.MH02EB3077 on public
road in a manner so rash and negligent so
as to endanger human life or to be likely to
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 8 --
4 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
cause hurt or injury to any other person and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 279 of Indian Penal Code?
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time the accused
caused grievous hurt to the wife of
informant namely Mansi by driving the
said motor cycle in so rash or negligent as
to endanger human life and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 338 of Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
3] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time the accused ran
away from the spot of accident without
providing medical aid to the injured and
without informing to the police about the
accident and thereby committed offence
punishable under section 134 (B) of the
Motor Vehicle Act?
Disproved
4] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 3:
8. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
determination.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined following witnesses:
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 8 --
5 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
SR.
NO.
NAME OF WITNESS KIND OF
WITNESS
EXHIBIT
NO.
1] Dhananjay Uttamrao
Bhaskar
Informant
(P.W.No.1)
P3
2] Natwarlal Chimanlal
Solanki
witness on spot
panchanama
(P.W.No.2)
P5
10. The case is pending since last about five years. Inspite of
having ample opportunity, the prosecution did not examine another
witnesses. Hence, having regard to the pendency of the case and the
status of the accused, this case needs to be disposed of in the light of
evidence placed on record.
11. There is no incriminating evidence placed on record
against the accused. Hence, the statement of the accused under Section
313 of Cr. P.C. is dispensed with.
12. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has
to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under section 279 of Indian Penal Code.
i] The accused was driving a vehicle or riding;
ii] He was doing so on a public road;
iii] He was also doing so rashly or negligently;
iv] The Act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or likely to
cause hurt or injury to any other person.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 8 --
6 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
Keeping in mind the above ingredients, let us make the
scrutiny of the evidence placed on record.
14. The informant, Dhananjay Bhaskar (P.W.1) deposed that
he got knowledge by mobile that his wife sustained head injury and
therefore, she was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that he
lodged the report against the accused. However, he did not depose a
single word against the accused which can indicate that the accused
was driving his said motor cycle on the spot of incident at the relevant
time.
15. It is pertinent to note here that while facing the cross
examination this star witness (P.W.No.1) specifically admitted that he
did not see the incident. He further admitted that he deposed as per
the narration given by his wife. Thus, the testimony of the informant
comes within the ambit of hearsay evidence. In fact, the prosecution
did not examine the victim who sustained injury in the alleged accident.
Moreover, the informant has categorically admitted in his cross
examination that he does not want to proceed with this case.
Therefore, in my opinion, for want of relevant and material evidence, it
is hard to believe that the accused was involved in the said crime.
16. The other witness, Natwarlal Solani testified that he did
not remember as to whether the police had called him as the panch
witness. Thus, the prosecution did not prove the spot of incident.
17. It is pertinent to note that none of the prosecution
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 8 --
7 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
witnesses has deposed the fact that the accused ran away from the spot
of incident without providing medical aid to the injured. Thus, there is
no iota of evidence placed on record to prove the offence punishable
under section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
18. It would not be out of place to mention here that inspite of
having ample opportunity, the prosecution did not examine the victim,
eye witnesses of the said incident, the medical officer who examined the
victim and the investigating officer. In such circumstances, the hearsay
evidence adduced by the informant is not sufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused.
19. The sum and substance of the discussion noted about is
that there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish
the fact that the accused drove the vehicle on public road in rash or
negligent manner and thereby caused grievous injury to the wife of the
informant. In short, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient to
prove the guilt of the accused. In other words the prosecution has
utterly failed to establish the material ingredients of Section 279, 338 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Hence, it can be held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the benefit of doubt
always goes in favour of the accused. Therefore, the accused is liable to
be acquitted from the alleged offence for want of sufficient evidence.
Hence, I record finding in negative for points No.1 to 3.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 8 --
8 C.C.No.2559/PS/2018
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused Hitesh Prabhakar Mahadik is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of the Indian
Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2 The bail bonds furnished by the accused stand cancelled.
3 The accused is directed to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) vide Section 437–A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to appear before the higher Court
as and when such Court issues notice in respect of appeal are
petition filed against this judgment.
4 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
5 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 03/07/2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 03/07/2023
Signed On: 03/07/2023
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --