Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
C/S filed on : 11/10/2018
Registered on: 11/10/2018
Decided on : 16/05/2025
Duration : 06 Y 07 M 05 D
Exh. 21.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018
(C.R.No.283/2018)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-010527-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: Dated 16/06/2018
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State (Juhu Police Station in
C. R. No. 283/2018)
(Through Shilpi Verma)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: Aakruti Anil Mistry,
Age : 51 years,
R/o. ‘B’ Wing, Yari Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 509, 323, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order : 16/05/2025
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 10 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. N.N.Sapkale.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. A.R.Shaikh.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial for the offence punishable under
Sections 509, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all six witnesses. The evidence of PW1 Informant Shilpi
Shilkumar Verma at Exh.5, PW2 Sanjay Ramchandra Zha at Exh.7, PW3
Alok Manoj Shrivastav at Exh.8, PW4 Santosh Baban Zore at Exh.9,
PW5 Manish Pushpkant Mhatre at Exh.13 and PW6 IO API Megha
Prakash Patil at Exh.36 came to be recorded. The statements of accused
u/Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C is recorded at Exh.20 wherein he took defence of
false implication in the case. Heard, Ld. APP for the State and Ld.
Advocate for the accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence
brought on record.
3. In this back ground PW1 Informant Shilpi Shilkumar Verma
deposed that, in the year 2018, she was residing at Krishna Kaveri
building, Yamuna Nagar, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai and that she
was doing work as makeup artist. On 16/06/2018 she alongwith her
friend Anil Mistry went to Mukteshwar Temple, Juhu at about 12.30
p.m. in the afternoon. Thereafter, she went to Shani Temple in the same
premises and while she was worshiping that time accused Akruti Anil
Mistry started coming behind her and accused was shooting in her
mobile phone and constantly following her. That time security guard of
temple premises asked accused not to shoot and thereafter, accused
-- 2 of 10 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
came in front of her and started shooting her face in her mobile.
Therefore, she tried to remove her mobile which was fallen down and
thereafter, accused pulled her hair and started abusing her in the words
“rq jaMh gS] rq j[ksy gS] esjs irh ds lkFk lks jgh gS”.
4. Further she stated that, accused threatened her to cause
her death and thereafter she alongwith Anil Mistry came outside from
the temple premises and went to Juhu Police Station. However they saw
that, accused was already sitting in the Juhu Police Station and she
lodged complaint against accused, however, NC was registered by the
Juhu police station on 16/06/2018. Thereafter, she approached DCP
office, Bandra alongwith CCTV footage of temple premises and
complaint that, no FIR was registered against accused by Juhu police
station and as per direction of DCP office, Bandra her FIR was
registered by Juhu Police station on 20/06/2018 which she proved at
Exh.6. She has also produced photographs of CCTV footage showing the
the presence of accused and she proved the said eight photographs
annexed alongwith chargesheet at Article ‘A’.
5. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, in the year 2018 she was not in any
knowledge that accused was the wife of Anil Mistry. She was acquainted
with Anil Mistry from the year 2013-14 and she was not acquainted
with Dilip Rajput. One FIR is registered against herself, Anil Mistry and
Anwar Shaikh by the accused vide CR No.222/2018, registered at
Charkop Police Station dated 06/06/2018 under Section 323, 354
r/w.34 of I.P.C. and said FIR was registered prior to 13-14 days from the
date of incident in this case. Rest of the cross is that of denial.
-- 3 of 10 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
6. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW2
Sanjay Ramchandra Jha deposed that, in the year 2018 he was working
in Mukteshwar Mandir at Juhu as Watchman and on 16/06/2018 he
was present in the Mukteshwar Mandir and the incident took place at
about 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon. That time one lady was taking video
of Mandir premises in her mobile and that time he restrained her not to
take video as it is not allowed and thereafter quarrel took place between
two ladies. This witness has not supported the case of prosecution and
also not identified the accused. Therefore his testimony is not helpful in
any way.
7. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW3 Alok
Manoj Shrivastav deposed that, in the year 2018 he was working as
Security Supervisor in Mukteshwar Mandir at Juhu and on 16/06/2018
he was present in the Mukteshwar Mandir and taking round. Incident
took place at about 12.45 p.m. in the afternoon and that time one lady
namely Akruti Mistry i.e.accused was taking video of informant Shilpi
Varma in Mandir premises in her mobile and that time watchman
Sanjay Zha restrained accused from taking video in the temple premises
8. Further he deposed that, Shilpi Varma came in front of
accused while accused was taking her video and she pushed the mobile
in the hands of accused. Thereafter accused slapped Shilpy Varma and
pulled her hair and abused her “rqe jaMh gks] esjs irh ds lkFk lksrh gks” and
that time herself and Sanjay Zha tried to rescue the quarrel and they
were expelled out of the premises of temple and police made inquiry
with him and recorded his statement.
9. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
-- 4 of 10 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
it is brought on record that, he was working in Mukteshwar Mandir
since last 13 years which is mentioned in his police statement and he
was working in the temple since his age was 15 yrs. and that time he
was given duty as Security Supervisor. He went to police station at
about 11.00 to 12.00 p.m. in the morning when his statement was
recorded by police on 20/06/2018. He stated before police that,
accused slapped informant, however it is not mentioned in his
statement before police. I stated before police that, accused abused
informant by saying “rqe jaMh gks] esjs irh ds lkFk lksrh gks”. Today I came
along-with Anil Mistry who is the husband of accused.
10. Further he deposed that, there are above 500 people
visiting the Mandir premises daily and he was not acquainted with the
names or address of those 500 people. He saw informant and accused
for the first time in the Mandir premises on the date of incident and
prior to the incident he is not having knowledge about informant and
accused and their address. He is acquainted with the husband of
accused Anil Mistry from the date of filing of this case.
11. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW4
Santosh Baban Zore deposed that, on 20/06/2018 police called him at
Juhu police station. PSI Megha Patil and other police staff were present
there. Police asked him to act as a panch at Mukteshwar Mandir, Juhu,
Mumbai. There was quarrel took place at Mukteshwari Mandir and PSI
Patil produced one CD in front of them. Police drew spot panchanama
and obtained his signature on it and he proved panchanama at Exh.10.
12. During his cross-examination it is brought on record that,
-- 5 of 10 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
he is frequently visiting Juhu P.S. as and when called by police and
having well acquaintance with them.
13. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW5
Manish Pushpkant Mhatre deposed that, in the year 2018, he was
residing at Juhu, Mumbai and he was working as Secretary in
Mukteshwar Devalay at Juhu, Vile Parle, Mumbai since 2010. Incident
took place on 16/06/2018 and that time quarrel took place between
two female persons and security guards Alok Shrivastav and Sanjay Zha
complained about the same to him. That time accused was doing video
shooting of informant from his mobile due to which quarrel took place
between accused and informant and accused abused informant. That
time he made complaint to Juhu P.S. as the informant and the accused
were disturbing the public peace in the temple and he proved the
complaint application at Exh.14.
14. Further he deposed that, there are CCTV camera installed
in the temple from the year 2010 which was produced before the Juhu
P.S. during investigation and he identified the photographs at Article-’A’
which is of the temple premises on the date of incident and he
identified security guard Sanjay Zha, accused, informant from those
photographs. In support of said photographs he has filed his certificate
u/Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which he proved at Exh. 15 and
he proved the photographs at Exh.16.
15. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, the trust authorizes to file complaint in
respect of any incident in temple premises. The trust has not passed any
resolution to authorize him to file complaint at Exh.14. The minute
-- 6 of 10 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
book and resolution were maintained by the trust authority and the
resolution was passed after filing complaint at Exh.14 to police station
in monthly meeting. He was not acquainted with informant and accused
prior to incident and he came to know from Anil Mistry about the name,
details of informant and accused as the reason of quarrel between them.
16. The last witness examined by the prosecution PW6 IO API
Megha Patil deposed that, on 20/06/2018 when she was on day duty as
SHO informant came to police station and filed complaint against
accused about the incident which took place on 16/06/2018 at
Mukteshwar Mandir, Juhu Mumbai. She alleged that, accused abused
her “rq jaMh gS] rq j[ksy gS] esjs irh ds lkFk lks jgh gS” and quarreled with her.
Accordingly she has recorded statement of informant and registered
crime vide C.R.No. 283/2018 against accused and she identified FIR at
Exh.6.
17. Further she deposed that, she carried investigation in the
matter wherein informant produced photographs and CD of the spot of
incident containing CCTV footage and she seized it by drawing
production panchanama on 20/06/2018 and proved at Exh.18. She
seized one Mozar Bear CD containing CCTV footage which was
deposited vide M.R.No. 118/2018. She issued notice to accused, but
accused failed to remain present and therefore, she was arrested. She
also visited the spot of incident, recorded statement of witnesses and
she identified photographs from record at Exh.16/Article-A. She
obtained certificate of witness Manish Mhatre u/Sec. 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act. She has also annexed one complaint application filed on
behalf of temple authority by Manish Mhatre which is at Exh.14. On
completion of her investigation, she found sufficient evidence against
-- 7 of 10 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
accused and therefore, she filed charge-sheet against accused.
18. During cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused,
it is brought on record that, she did not remember whether accused
came to Juhu P.S. for making complaint on 16/06/2018. She admitted
that, one NC vide No. 1605/2018 was registered on the basis of
complaint of informant by her and she has not informed informant for
recording her statement u/Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. and her statement u/Sec.
164(5)(a) of Cr.P.C. was not recorded and she has not requested the
concerned Magistrate Court by issuing any requisition letter. She did not
remember whether prior to 20/06/2018 informant never came to police
station for filing any complaint.
19. Further she deposed that, she did not remember whether as
per the direction and order of DCP dated 21/06/2018, she registered
the FIR against accused on 20/06/2018 prior to receiving order by DCP
office. She did not remember whether informant came to police station
on 16/06/2018 and she registered only NC against accused.
20. After going through the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it appears that, PW1 is the informant who on the date of
incident went to Mukteshwar temple along-with husband of accused
namely Anil Mistry and that time accused noticed them together and
started shooting informant in her mobile and there was altercation took
place in between them as well as accused pulled her hair and slapped
her and abused in filthy language. Here it is noted that, the husband of
accused Anil Mistry is not at all examined by the prosecution to focus
on the fact of the incident and to corroborate the testimony of PW1 on
the point of allegation of assault and abused in filthy language by
-- 8 of 10 --
Judgment 9 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
accused. The non examination material witness Anil Mistry has caused
serious lacuna to the prosecution case and on the contrary it upholds
the defence of accused of having extra marital affair between the
informant and the husband of accused. Not only this the Ld. Advocate
for accused during the course of argument has pointed out certain
documents along-with application at Exh.19 to support the aforesaid
defence of relationship between the husband of accused with informant.
21. Further the informant PW1 has not deposed in accordance
with the contents of her FIR at Exh.6 in material particular and the
other witness examined by prosecution who was the watchman present
on the spot has turned hostile. PW3 appears to be the interested witness
who accompanied the Court proceeding along-with husband of accused
and his cross-examination shows that, he is not acquainted with the
name and address of all the persons visiting the temple premises.
22. PW4 is the panch witness in respect of panchnama at
Exh.10 who is also habitual panch witness and prosecution is unable to
play the said CD before the Court. Apart from PW4 prosecution has not
examined any other panch witnesses. PW5 who is the Secretary of said
temple has produced the said CD containing CCTV footage and his
cross-examination shows that, he is not acquainted with informant and
accused prior to incident.
23. The last witness IO PW6 has deposed about the
investigation carried out and in her cross-examination also she admitted
about filing cross case against the accused by the informant vide NC No.
1605/2018. There is no whisper about the presence of husband of
accused Anil Mistry in the police station along-with PW1 at the time of
-- 9 of 10 --
Judgment 10 C. C. No. 2821/PW/2018.
lodging complaint. Further except the bare words of PW1 there is no
corroboration to prove the charges levelled against accused of
intentionally insulting and abusing the informant in filthy language as
well as voluntarily causing hurt to informant and threatening to her.
24. Therefore, considering all these facts, it appears that, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt
of accused for the offence p/u/s. 509, 323, 506 of the IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt. As such the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In the
result I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i Accused Akruti Anil Mistry is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 509, 323, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code vide section 248 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii Seized muddemal i.e. CD of CCTV footage be
kept with record.
iv The accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Sd/-
(R. M. Shaikh)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 16/05/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 16/05/2025.
Transcribed on : 16/05/2025.
Signed on : 16/05/2025. : 19/10/2023
-- 10 of 10 --