Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.NO.2202401/PW/2018
Filed on : 30082018
Registered on : 30082018
Decided on : 17102019
Duration : 01Y, 01M, 17D
Exh. : 07
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDIL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided Over by S. N. SALVE)
Judgment Under Section 355 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure
(a) The serial & CNR No. of
the case;
: C. C. No. 2202401/PW/2018
CNRNo.MHMM190096682018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 30032018
(c) The name of the
complainant
(if any);
: The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of M.I.D.C. Police
Station in Crime No. 147/2018)
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage
and residence;
: 1)
2)
Dilip Kaloba Gaikwad
Age : 55 years
Occupation : Civil Contractor
Aashish Dilip Gaikwad
Age : 23 years
Occupation : Civil Contractor
Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are r/at :
Nanak Niwas Society,
Building No. A13, Room
No.24, Bindra Complex,
Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai.
...2/
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C.C.NO.2202401/PW/2018
(e) The offences complained
of or proved;
: Under Sections 324 & 504 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code
(f) The plea of the accused
and
his 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; : 17102019.
Appearance: APP Mrs. N. R. Pasarkar for the State.
Advocate Shri. Dilip Patil for accused.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 17102019 )
The accused persons stand prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (For short, the I.P.C.).
2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 31032018
the informant Santosh Natekar lodged report with M.I.D.C. Police
Station alleging therein that on 30032018 at around 9.30 p.m.
committee members and other persons had gathered at Limboni Buddh
Vihar Hall, at that time altercation took place. On account of that the
accused started hurling abuses at the informant. After that the accused
persons assaulted the informant by means of iron rod. After this
incident they were rushed to hospital.
3. On the basis of aforesaid F.I.R., Crime No. 147/2018 under
...3/
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C.C.NO.2202401/PW/2018
Sections 324 & 504 of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused.
The investigation of the crime was carried out by P.S.I. Sagar Patil.
During the investigation he seized iron rod under panchnama and after
completion of due investigation he submitted chargesheet against the
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324 & 504
r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C.
4. I framed charge (Exh2) against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 324 & 504 r/w Section 34 of the
I.P.C.. It was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded
their innocence and claimed to be tried. The statements of accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not recorded
as there is no incriminating evidence against them.
5. The points for determination along with my findings with
reasons thereon are as follows :
Sr.
No
Points Findings
1 Whether the prosecution proves that
accused in furtherance of their common
intention voluntarily caused hurt to
informant and witness by hands and by
means of iron rod ?
: No.
2 Whether the prosecution proves that
accused in furtherance of their common
intention intentionally insulted informant
and witness?
: No.
3 What order ? : Accused are
acquitted.
...4/
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C.C.NO.2202401/PW/2018
R E A S O N S
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined only the informant viz. Santosh Nanarao
Natekar (PW 1) at Exh.4.
: Point Nos. 1 & 2 :
7. All the points are dealt with simultaneously so as to avoid
repetition of discussion of evidence which is common for them.
8. Santosh Nanarao Natekar (PW1) being the victim of the
crime is a star witness of the prosecution. Unfortunately, he has not
supported to the case of the prosecution. He deposed that, on
30032018 quarrel took place at Limboni Buddh Vihar, therefore he
lodged report. In the crossexamination, he deposed that matter has
been amicably settled out of the Court and he does not want to proceed
with the case.
9. As the informant Santosh Nanarao Natekar (PW1) himself
has not supported, rest of the witnesses have not been examined.
Under these circumstances, examining remaining witnesses would have
be futile exercise. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution came to be
closed without examining remaining witnesses.
10. There is no iota of evidence against the accused showing
that they voluntarily caused hurt by hands and by means of iron rod to
the informant and witness and intentionally insulted them. I, therefore,
hold that prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the
accused. Consequently, I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative.
...5/
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C.C.NO.2202401/PW/2018
: Point No. 3 :
11. In view of my negative findings as to point Nos. 1 & 2
accused are entitled for acquittal.
12. In the result, following order is passed.
O R D E R
(i) Accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under 324 &
504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code under Section
248 (i) of Cr.P.C.
(ii) Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
(iii) They shall furnish P.R. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/ (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand Only) each as per Section 437 (A) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the period of six months.
(iv) The seized muddemal property i.e. iron rod be sold in auction
and sale proceeds be credited to the Government, after the
appeal period is over.
Date : 17102019
(S. N. Salve)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
*csj
Dictated on : 17102019
Typed on : 17102019
signed on : 17102019
.../
-- 5 of 5 --