Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
MHMM190099082018
Form No.XXXII
Part 'A'
(Para 44 (I) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
J U D G M E N T
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY SUJITKUMAR C. TAYDE)
(Date of Judgment: 2nd January, 2024)
Case No.2636/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190099082018
FIR/Crime No.165/2018
Police Station: Amboli, Mumbai.
COMPLAINANT The State of Maharashtra
through the Station Incharge of
Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.
REPRESENTED BY Learned A.P.P. Smt. Seema Mokal
ACCUSED 1] Rajesh Jamana Gujar,
Age – 37 Yrs., Occ Service,
2] Ravindra Jamana Gujar,
Age – 35 Yrs., Occ. Service,
Both accused R/o. Room No.10,
Jamuna Gujar Chawl,
Mhatarpada, Amboli,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 9 --
2 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocate Shri Datta Papal
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 25/03/2018
Date of FIR 25/03/2018
Date of chargesheet 25/09/2018
Date of framing of charges 16/12/2021
Date of commencement of
evidence
21/12/2023
Date of which judgment is
reserved
02/01/2024
Date of the judgment 02/01/2024
Accused Details
Rank of
the
accused
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offences
charged
with
Whether
acquitted or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1 Rajesh
Jamana
Gujar
25/03/2
018
25/09/20
18
324, 323,
504 r/w.
34 of the
Indian
Penal
Code
Acquitted No No
2 Ravindra
Jamana
Gujar
25/03/2
018
25/09/20
18
do do No No
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 9 --
3 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
Part 'C'
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
PW 1 Ganesh Dhaneshwar
Katkar
Informant (Exh.No.05)
B. Defence witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
C. Court witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
Nil Nil Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION EXHIBITS
Sr.
No.
Nature of Exhibit Exhibit No.
Nil FIR 06
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 9 --
4 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02/01/2024)
The accused No.1 and 2 stand prosecuted for having
committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. The informant, Ganesh Dhaneshwar Katkar was gossiping
with his friends on 25/03/2018 at about 2.30 hrs. near Oshiya Corner
Building, Amboli, Andheri (W). Both the accused came there and asked
the informant as to why he abused them. But the informant told them
that he was not abusing them. However, both the accused started to
beat the informant. The accused caused injury to the informant by
means of helmet and bamboo stick. The friends of the informant saved
him from the clutches of the accused persons and thereafter, the
informant was admitted in the Cooper Hospital where the police
recorded his statement and registered the offence against the accused
persons punishable under section 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code vide Crime No.165/2018 in Police Station Amboli.
3. The further investigation of the said crime was handed over
to Mr.V. R. Gaikwad, AssistantPoliceInspector who recorded the
statements of the witnesses. He seized the articles and prepared the
panchanama. Having completed the investigation, the chargesheet
came to be filed under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. against the accused
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 9 --
5 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
persons for having committed the offence punishable under Section
324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Having secured the presence of the accused persons, 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 324,
323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was read over to the
accused No.1 and 2. They 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
25/03/2018 at about 2.30 a.m. in front of
Oshiya Corner Building, Mahatarpada Road,
Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai, both the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention voluntarily caused hurt to
informant by means of Helmet and bamboo
which is an instrument for stabbing or
cutting which used as weapon of offence is
likely to cause death and thereby committed
an offence punishable under section 323
and 324 of Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 9 --
6 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, both the
accused in furtherance of their common
intention insulted the informant by giving
abuses so as to give provocation to
informant intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause
informant to break public peace and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 504 of Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
3] What order ? The accused
No.1 and 2 are
acquitted as per
the final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 AND 2:
7. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
determination.
8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has examined the informant Ganesh Dhaneshwar Katkar
(P.W.No.1). The case is pending since last about five 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 persons, this case needs to be disposed of in the
light of evidence placed on record.
9. There is no incriminating evidence placed on record
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 9 --
7 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
against the accused persons. Hence, the statement of the accused
persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. is dispensed with.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
11. The informant, Ganesh Dhaneshwar Katkar (P.W.1)
deposed that on the day of incident he had gone to see quarrel but he
fell down and sustained injury to his head. He further deposed that on
the say of the public, he lodged report against the accused persons.
12. Even during the course of crossexamination, the informant
did not support the prosecution. In his crossexamination he denied that
the accused caused injury to him. In short, there is no iota of evidence
placed on record against the accused persons regarding the offence
punishable under section 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Moreover, the informant stated on oath that the matter had been
compromised between him and the accused persons and he does not
want to proceed further with this matter.
13. In the present case the prosecution did not examine any
other witness except the informant. The medical officer who examined
the informant has not been examined in this matter. So also the spot
panchanama and arrest panchanama of the accused persons have not
been proved. In the absence of evidence of the investigating officer, the
contradiction and omission that occurred in the deposition of the
informant remains disproved and therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 9 --
8 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
favour of the accused persons.
14. The sum and substance of the discussion noted about is
that there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the
accused persons. In short, the evidence placed on record is not sufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused persons. In other words the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish the material ingredients of
Section 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 persons. Therefore, the accused are liable
to be acquitted from the alleged offence for want of sufficient evidence.
Hence, I record my finding in negative for point No.1 and 2.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused No.1 Rajesh Jamana Gujar and accused No.2
Ravindra Jamana Gujar are acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 324, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code vide Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2 Bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 stand cancelled.
3 The seized muddemal property i.e. Wooden bamboo being
worthless be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 9 --
9 C.C.No.2636/PW/2018
Exh.07
4 The accused no.1 and 2 are directed to execute P.R. Bond of
Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each 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.
5 The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer.
6 The Judgment is pronounced in open Court.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Date : 02/01/2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 02/01/2024
Signed On: 02/01/2024
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 9 --