Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
Filed on .. 04/12/2018
Registered on .. 04/12/2018
Delivered on .. 05/02/2019
Duration .. 00Y 02M 00D
CNR NO. MHMM190129392018
Exh.6
IN THE COURT OF THE 65th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by S.C.Pathare)
(Judgment as per Sec. 355 of the Cr. P. C.)
(a) The serial number of the
case;
: 3240/PW/2018
(b) The date of commission of
offence;
: From July 2013 till 26.03.2017.
(c) The name of the informant,
if any;
: Through P. S. O. Andheri police
Station. (C.R. No. 150/2017)
(d) The name of the accused
person, his parentage and
residence;
: 1. Sanjay Shamkishore Yadav.
Age : 20 years.
R/O. Saidas Bhutta Chawl,
Old Nagardas Road,
Andheri, Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of
or proved;
: U/Sec.498A,323, 406, 504, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination, (if any);
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order; : As per operative Part.
h) The date of such order; : 05.02.2019.
Appearance : Ld. APP. Miss Priti Jagtap for the State.
Ld. Adv. Shri. R.T. Shaikh for the Accused.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 05.02.2019)
1. The accused has been chargesheet ed for the offences
punishable U/Sec.498A,323, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short “IPC”).
Factual Matrix :
On 17.11.2010 informant lady got married with accused.
However thereafter she was subjected to physical and mental ill
treatment by him in order to get fulfilled his unlawful demands. She
lodged report in that regard in the police station.
2. On the basis of said report, crime has been registered. Police
recorded statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation,
police chargesheeted the accused .
3. Charge is framed against the accused vide Exh.2. The same
was read over and explained to him in vernacular, to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial
and false implication.
4. The following points arose for determination and I have
recorded my findings thereon for the reasons discussed hereinafter :
S.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether prosecution proved that from July
2013 to 26.03.2017 at Bhaidas Bhutta
chawl, Andheri, accused subjected informant
lady to cruelty in order to get fulfilled
unlawful demand/s ?
...Not
proved.
-- 2 of 6 --
3 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
2 Whether prosecution proved that on the
above date, time and place, Accused
voluntarily caused hurt to informant by
beating her ? ...Not
proved.
3 Whether prosecution proved that on the
above date, time and place, Accused was
entrusted with stridhan of the informant and
withheld the same for his own purpose ? ...Not
proved.
4 Whether prosecution proved that on the
above date, time and place, Accused
intentionally insulted informant by abusing
her and thereby gave provocation to the
same intending that such provocation would
cause her to break the public peace ? ...Not
proved..
5 Whether prosecution proved that on the
above date, time and place, in the same
transaction, Accused threatened informant
and thereby caused alarm to the same ? ...Not
proved.
6 What order ? As per
operative
part.
-- 3 of 6 --
4 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
R E A S O N S
As to point Nos. 1 to 5 :
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused prosecution has
examined only one witness. PW1 Priya Yadav i.e. informant is
examined at Exh.4. By making application dated 30.01.2019
complainant preferred to close her evidence.
6. The Statement of accused U/Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been dispensed with.
7. In this case, PW1 is the victim of the alleged incident,
therefore her testimony has assumed much importance. She deposed
that after marriage, she went to the house of the accused for leading
matrimonial life.
She deposed that she gave birth to a daughter, thereafter
accused started beating her. She deposed that both parties were having
differences. She deposed that she lodged report Exh. 5, however, made
it clear that in domestic violence petition, they have settled their dispute
amicably, therefore she does not want to proceed further with this case.
She further deposed that she has got back her articles/stridhan from the
accused. Thus it is clear that due to compromise out of the court,
informant i.e. star witness is not ready and willing to depose anything
against the accused.
8. Testimony of PW1 denotes that the same has made vague
allegations against accused. It is seen that testimony of PW1 is not
specific and the same is without necessary details.
9. The testimonies of remaining witnesses including
Investigating Officer could not come on the record. In short there is
-- 4 of 6 --
5 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
absence of clear, cogent/reliable evidence against the accused. Had
really alleged incident occurred, she must have deposed according to
her report and must have examined remaining witnesses. However in
the present case, informant settled the matter out of the court.
Therefore it creates doubt whether alleged incident had really occurred.
10. It is the settled position of law that prosecution has to
establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in
the present case it has failed to do so. In view of the above peculiar
facts, circumstances and evidence, accused is found entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answered above points in the negative
and proceed to pass infra order :
ORDER
i. Accused1 named above are hereby acquitted of the offences
punishable U/Sec.498A,323, 406, 504, 506 vide the provisions of
section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
ii His bail bonds, (if any) are cancelled.
iii The accused is directed to furnish P.B. of Rs.5,000/ for the
appearance before the Hon'ble Appellate Court towards the compliance
of Section 437(A) of the Cr.P.C.
iv. Dictated & declared in the open Court.
Sd/
(S.C. Pathare)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Date : 05.02.2019.
ask
1 Named & described in the schedule at page No.1 of this judgment at Sr.No.(d).
-- 5 of 6 --
6 C. C. NO.3240/PW/2018
“I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Judgment are
same word for word as per original Judgment.
Name of Steno : A.S. Kubal
Court Name : S.C. Pathare,Metropolitan Magistrate, 65th Court,
Andheri, Mumbai.
Judgment signed by Presiding Officer on : 05.02.2019.
Judgment uploaded on : 06.02.2019.
-- 6 of 6 --