Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
Received on : 07/09/2018
Registered on : 01/10/2018
Decided on : 21/08/2023
Duration : 04 Y. 11 M. 14 D.
Exh. : 05
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.MHMM190097202018
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: 24/02/2018
(c) The name of the complainant
(if any);
: The State (Amboli Police Station
in C. R. No. 111/2018).
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Afshan Mohammad Rafiq
Shaikh,
Age – 25 Yrs.
Occupation Education,
R/o.Room No.602,
Shakti Apartment,
Sahakar Road,
Jogeshwari (W),
Mumbai – 400 102.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 279, 338 of the
Indian Penal Code r/w. Section
134 (A) (B) of the Motor Vehicle
Act.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination (if any);
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 8 --
2 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
(g) The final order; The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 21/08/2023
Learned advocate for the State Smt.Seema Mokal
Learned advocate for the accused – Shri Harish Shetty
J U D G M E N T
( Delivered on 21/08/2023. )
The accused stands prosecuted for having committed the
offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code
r/w. Section 134 (A) (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. The informant/complainant namely Sairabibi lodged the
report to the Police Station Amboli against the accused interalia
alleging that on 24/02/2018 at about 8.00 pm. she and her familiar
woman Phoolpanbebi were going to Rehan Tower to attend their duty.
At that time near Ghaswala Dairy, one motor cycle rider dashed
Phoolanbebi. Due to this accident said Phoolpanbebi and the driver of
the said motor cycle fell down. Said Phoolpanbebi sustained injury.
Therefore, the public who gathered on the spot of the incident, took the
said injured to Trama Care Hospital, Mumbai. Thereafter, one of the
people identified the motor cycle driver who is accused in this matter.
Having undergone the medical treatment, the informant lodged the
report against the accused and as per her report the offence punishable
under section 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (A)
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 8 --
3 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
(B) of the Motor Vehicle Act came to recorded against the accused vide
Crime 111/2018. Further investigation was handed over to Police Sub
Inspector Amit Khutwad who prepared the spot panchanama and
recorded the statements of the witnesses. He collected the relevant
medical certificates and documents.
3. 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 (A) (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
4. 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.
5. The charge for the offence punishable under section 279,
338 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (A) (B) of the Motor
Vehicle Act was read over to the accused. He did not plead guilty.
Hence, the trial was conducted.
6. In the backdrop 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
24/02/2018 at about 8.00 hrs., at S. V. Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 8 --
4 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
Road, In front of Lakhnavi Hotel,
Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai, the accused
drove his bullet motor cycle bearing
registration No.MH02DY1777 on public
road in a manner so rash and negligent so
as to endanger human life or to be likely to
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 Phoolpanbabi
Musa Shaikh 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
failed to provide medical aid to the injured
and also failed intimate to the police
regarding the said accident and thereby
committed offence punishable under
section 134 (A)(B) of the Motor Vehicle
Act?
Disproved
4] What order ? The accused is
acquitted as per
final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 3:
7. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 8 --
5 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
determination.
8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined following witnesses:
SR.
NO.
NAME OF WITNESS KIND OF
WITNESS
EXHIBIT
NO.
1] Sairabibi Shahabuddin
Shaikh
Informant
(P.W.No.1)
P3
9. The case is pending since last about four years. In spite 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.
10. 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.
11. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
12. 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;
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 8 --
6 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
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.
Keeping in mind the above ingredients, let us make the
scrutiny of the evidence placed on record.
13. The informant, Sairabibi Shahabuddin Shaikh (P.W.1)
deposed that incident occurred prior to 4 years near Pakija Hotel,
Jogeshwari (W) at 8.00 a.m.. According to her evidence, she was
proceeding to her work along with Phoolbano and she saw that
Phoolbano has fell down. Thus, she does not know about the incident.
14. In fact, the prosecution did not examine the victim who
sustained injury in the alleged accident. So also the investigating officer
has not been examined. Moreover, the eye witness has stated that she
does not know about the incident. 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.
15. It is pertinent to note that none of the prosecution
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 (A) (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
16. The sum and substance of the discussion noted about is
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 8 --
7 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
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 said
Phoolpanbano. 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 (A)(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
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused Afshan Mohammad Rafiq Shaikh is acquitted of
the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of the Indian
Penal Code r/w. Section 134 (A)(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.5,000/
(Rupees Five 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.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 8 --
8 C.C.No.2537/PS/2018
4 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
5 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 21/08/2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 21/08/2023
Signed On: 21/08/2023
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --