Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
C/S filed on : 20/10/2018
Registered on : 20/10/2018
Decided on : 17/05/2025.
Duration : 06 Y 06 M 27 D
Exh. 12.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018 (C.R.No. 378/18)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-010839-2018)
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. 2865/PS/2018.
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: On 23/08/2018
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State ( D.N. Nagar Police
Station in C. R. No. 378/18)
(d) The name of the accused
person and their parentage
and residence;
: Asim Ali Riyad Sayyed
Age : 29 years,
R/at : Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 336, 427 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 : 17/05/2025
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. N.N. Sapkale.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. Patel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused is facing trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 336, 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all four witnesses. The evidence of PW1 informant
Sohankumar Chilmil Yadav at Exh.5, PW2 Samir Mahadev Indulakar at
Exh.7 and PW3 panch Satyanarayan Swaminarayan Gupta at Exh.8 and
PW4 IO API Raju Ashok Chavhan at Exh.9 came to be recorded. The
statement of accused u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded at Exh.11 wherein
he took defence that, false case is filed against him. 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 Sohankumar Chilmil
Yadav deposed that, in the year 2018 he was residing along-with his
employer Veerbhandra Vishal Vatsa and he was working as driver with
him on his four wheeler car Hyundai Creta. Incident took place on
23/08/2018 at about 4.00 p.m. while he was returning along-with his
employer in above Hyundai Creta car from Marine Drive. When they
came near Juhu Circle, Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai, one
motorcycle rider was caught by police who was standing in front of his
car. Therefore, he gave him horn, however, he took his helmet in his
hand and started throwing said helmet on front glass and side mirror of
the car due to which the glass was broken and the mirror was damaged.
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
4. Further he deposed that, his employer took said person to
D.N. Nagar police station along-with traffic police present on the spot
and he lodged FIR against said person which he proved at Exh.6. He
stated the number of motorcycle before police while lodging FIR and
the number of Hyundai car was MH-46-BM-2828 and the vehicle
number of motorcycle mentioned in his FIR is MH-03-CA-6245.
5. During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, he stated before police while
lodging FIR that there was green signal and he was giving horn to
accused who was standing in front of their car. He cannot assign any
reason why it is not mentioned in his FIR.
6. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW2
PC Samir Mahadev Indulakar deposed that, on 23/08/2018 he was on
day duty from 9.00 a.m. and directed to take action against the vehicles
parked in no parking area and riders driving the motorcycle without
helmet etc. At about 4.00 p.m. he was present at Juhu Circle on his
duty. That time one motorcycle bearing No. MH-03-CA-6245 came there
and the rider was found not wearing helmet, therefore he was
restrained for taking action. That time the said motorcycle rider started
quarreling with him and he was standing with his vehicle between the
road and not ready to take it beside the road due to which there was
traffic jam caused.
7. Further he stated that, behind his motorcycle there was one
Hyundai car and as the motorcycle rider was not ready to move his
motorcycle the person driving Hyundai car was unable to take his car
ahead and therefore, he started honking due to which the motorcycle
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
rider became angry and he started throwing helmet on front and side
mirror glass of Hyundai car due to which it was broken and damaged
and there was heavy traffic jam caused.
8. Further he deposed that, he with the help of another police
colleague took the motorcycle and rider on said motorcycle beside the
road and he was brought to D.N. Nagar police station and handed over
to SHO. He came to know the name of motorcycle rider as Asif Ali
Sayyed i.e accused and thereafter the driver of Hyundai car also came
in the D.N. Nagar P.S. who lodged FIR in this case and police recorded
his statement during investigation. In his cross-examination, he denied
all the suggestions of the accused.
9. The next witness is examined by the prosecution PW3
panch Satyanarayan Swaminarayan Gupta deposed that, on
23/08/2018 he was called by D.N. Nagar police for drawing
panchanama Near Juhu Circle Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. That time
informant Sohankumar and other police were also present there and the
spot was shown by the informant. Thereafter police drew spot
panchanama and obtained his signature on it which he proved at Exh.9.
In his cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions of the accused.
10. The last witness is examined by the prosecution PW4 IO
API Raju Ashok Chavhan deposed that, on 23/08/2018 when he was on
day duty informant Mohan Kumar Chilmil Yadav came to police station
and filed complaint that, while he was going along-with his employer
Veerbhandra Vishal Vatsa in Creta car bearing No. MH-46-BM-2828.
That time traffic police were taking actions and accused along-with his
motorcycle bearing No. MH-03-CA-6245 was standing middle of the
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
road due to which informant cannot go ahead. Therefore, he gave him
horn and the accused came near the informant by taking helmet in his
hand and started throwing said helmet on front glass and side mirror of
the car due to which the glass was broken and the mirror was damaged.
11. Further he deposed that, traffic police caught the accused
and taken to police station and thereafter he recorded statement of
informant which he identified at Exh. 6. Thereafter he carried
investigation in the matter wherein he visited the spot and drew spot
panchanama in presence of panch witnesses which he identified at
Exh.9. Thereafter, he recorded statement of PN Indulkar and he arrested
accused and he proved arrest panchanama at Exh.10. After completion
of investigation, he found sufficient evidence against accused and filed
charge-sheet in the Court.
12. During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of
accused, it is brought on record that, the helmet of the accused is not
seized. He did not remember that, the spot of incident is situated in
crowded area. He has not recorded the statement of any other witness
except traffic police. The rest of the cross is that of denial.
13. After going through the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it appears that, PW1 is the informant and driver who was
proceeding along-with his employer Veerbhandra Vishal Vatsa in his
Hyundai Creta Car MH-046-BM-2828 and when they reached near Juhu
Circle, Andheri, the traffic police PW2 was taking action against the
accused for not wearing helmet and that time it is alleged that, due to
the motorcycle of accused standing on the road, the informant was
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
unable to proceed ahead and thereafter quarrel took place and the
accused was alleged to have thrown helmet on front and side mirror
glass of Hyundai car causing damage and loss. On bare perusal of this
prosecution story, it appears that, there is no contention of informant
PW1 that the said helmet was used for assaulting informant or his
employer or the act of accused was so rash or negligent so as to
endanger human life or personal safety of others. Therefore, the
ingredients of offence p/u/s. 336 of IPC is not satisfactorily established
by the prosecution.
14. Moreover the owner of the car or the employer of PW1 i.e.
Veerbhandra Vishal Vatsa is not at all cited as a witness in the charge-
sheet and also not examined by the prosecution for the best reasons
knowing to them who is prime witness and he could have focused on
the actual occurrence of incident. Therefore, there is lacuna on the part
of prosecution due to non examination of material witness.
15. Further PW2 is traffic police who was taking action against
accused for not wearing helmet and here it is noted that, if at all
accused was having helmet with him, then why it is not seized by the IO
PW4 during his investigation as muddemal property and it is also not
shown the witnesses of prosecution i.e. PW1 to PW3 during their
evidence before the Court. Again it is noted that the damage or loss
caused to the Hyundai car due to alleged throwing of helmet on the
front and side mirror glass, there is absolutely no panchnama drawn
about the damage or loss caused to the Hyundai car and no RTO
inspection report is also obtained by the IO PW4. There is also no
mention of said car standing on the spot while drawing spot panchnama
at Exh.9. Therefore, said panchnama at Exh.9 is also not helpful to the
-- 6 of 7 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 2865/PS/2018
prosecution. Apart from PW1 to PW3 the prosecution has also not
examined any other independent witness present on the spot which is
situated in crowded area.
16. 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.336, 427 of the Indian Penal Code
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 Asim Ali Riyad Sayyed is acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 336, 427 of the
Indian Penal Code vide Section 255 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
ii Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
iii The accused shall furnish bond of Rs.10,000/-
under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(R. M. Shaikh)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 17/05/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 17/05/2025.
Transcribed on : 17/05/2025.
Signed on : 17/05/2025. ed on : 19/10/2023
Transcribed on : 19/10/2023
Signed on : 19/10/2023
-- 7 of 7 --