Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
MHMM190154152018
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: 29th January, 2024)
Case No.2830/PW/2018
CNR No.MHMM190154152018
FIR/Crime No.151/2018
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] Ashok Janardan Choudhary,
Age – 37 Yrs., Occ. Founder,
R/o. Darmamahal, Basement No.23,
Nepsi Road 80, Mumbai,
2] Raj @ Bhairavnath Bholanath
Soni,
Age – 25 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o. Dahanbaug Lake,
Behind Gaondevi Mandi,
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 10 --
2 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
Babaji Chawl, Room No.02,
Nalasopara (East), Dist – Palghar.
3] Suraj Awadhnarayan Giri,
Age – 27 Yrs., Occu. Service,
R/o. Nagindas Pada, Omnagar,
Krushna Kunj Society,
Room No.206, 2nd Floor,
Nalasopara (E), Dist – Palghar.
4] Robin Mahendra Lidha,
Age – 27 Yrs., Occu. Education,
R/o. Sai Niwas Tower, 1st Floor,
Neele Moregaon, Nalasopara,
Dist – Palghar.
REPRESENTED BY Learned Advocate Shri Gupta and Shri
Dubey
Part 'B'
(Para 44(ii) off Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 16/03/2018
Date of FIR 16/03/2018
Date of chargesheet 12/10/2018
Date of framing of charges 05/01/2024
Date of commencement of
evidence
05/01/2024
Date of which judgment is
reserved
29/01/2024
Date of the judgment 29/01/2024
Accused Details
Rank of
the
accused
Name of
Accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offences
charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 10 --
3 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
convicted during
Trial for
purpose of
Section
428 of
Cr.P.C.
1 Ashok
Janardan
Choudhary
18/04/20
18
12/10/2018 354, 323,
509, 504
r/w. 34
of the
Indian
Penal
Code
Acquitted No No
2 Raj @
Bhairavnat
h
Bholanath
Soni
16/05/20
18
do do do do do
3 Suraj
Awadhnara
yan Giri
21/05/20
18
do do do do do
4 Robin
Mahendra
Lidha
20/07/20
18
do do do do do
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 Sneha Lalsingh Thakur Informant (Exh.No.5)
B. Defence witnesses, if any.
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE
WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 10 --
4 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
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
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 29/01/2024)
The accused No.1 to 4 stand prosecuted for having
committed the offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 509, 504
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under :
2. The informant namely Sneha Lalsingh Thakur was working
under the supervision of Laxmi Singh who was project manager of
Riddhi Siddhi Charitable Trust Stall which was established in Sector
No.14, Nerul, Navi Mumbai on 16/03/2018. The accused persons also
established their another stall in the said campaign. There was dispute
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 10 --
5 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
between these two trust. On the very day at about 7.00 p.m., the
accused persons abused the informant. Thereafter, the project manager
Laxmi came there and asked the accused persons as to why they abused
the informant. At that time, the accused persons gave a blow of fist on
the face of said Laxmi and abused her. It is further alleged that the
accused persons pressed the chest of said Laxmi.
3. Being aggrieved by the criminal acts committed by the
accused persons, the informant lodged the report against the accused.
On the basis of the report lodged by the informant the offence
punishable under section 354, 323, 509, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code came to be registered against the accused persons vide
Crime No.151/2018 in Police Station Amboli.
4. The further investigation of the said crime was handed over
to Shri Babasaheb Namdeo Patil, PoliceSubInspector who recorded the
statements of the witnesses. Having completed the investigation, the
chargesheet came to be filed under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. against the
accused persons for having committed the offence punishable under
Section 354, 323, 509, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. 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.
6. The charge for the offence punishable under section 354,
323, 509, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was read over to the
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 10 --
6 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
accused persons. They did not plead guilty. Hence, the trial was
conducted.
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that the statement
of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. is dispensed with
since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons
placed on record.
8. 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
16/03/2018 at about 19.00 hrs. near
Infinity Mall, New Link Road, Andheri (W),
Mumbai, all accused in furtherance of their
common intention used criminal force to
witness Laxmi Singh by touching her breast
with intent to outrage her modesty by such
criminal force and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 354 r/w.
34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
2] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, all accused in
furtherance of their common intention
voluntarily caused hurt to the witness
Nishant Rathod with hand and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?
Disproved
3] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, all accused in
Disproved
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 6 of 10 --
7 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
furtherance of their common intention
intending to insult the modesty of the
informant uttered obscene words by
abusing her in filthy and obscene language
intending that same shall be heard by the
informant and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 509 of
Indian Penal Code?
4] Does the prosecution prove that on the
same date, place and time, all accused in
furtherance of their common intention
intentionally insulted the informant and
witness Laxmi Singh by abusing them and
thereby gave provocation to them
intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause them to break
public peace and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 504 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code
Disproved
5] What order ? The accused
no.1 to 4 are
acquitted as per
the final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 TO 4 :
9. These points are interconnected with each other.
Therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and
determination.
10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined the informant, Sneha Lalsingh Thakur
(P.W.No.1). The case is pending since last about five years. In spite of
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 10 --
8 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
having ample opportunity, the prosecution did not examine another
witnesses. Hence, having regard to the pendency of the case, this case
needs to be disposed of in the light of evidence placed on record.
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code, prosecution
has to prove the following ingredients
i] The women was assaulted or subjected to use of assault
criminal force on her;
ii] The intention of the accused was to outrage her modesty; and
iii] The accused knew that her modesty will be outraged thereby.
12. Having gone through the record, I heard the learned
advocates for both the sides.
13. In fact, the informant/complainant, Sneha Lalsingh Thakur
(P.W.1) deposed that she know the accused persons and the dispute
arose between her and them about five years ago. Though she deposed
that she lodged the report against the accused persons, yet no
incriminating evidence was placed on record to prove the offence
punishable under section 354, 323, 509, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. On the other hand, while facing the crossexamination
conducted by the prosecution, she categorically admitted the fact that
the compromised took place them out of the Court and she does want to
proceed further with this matter. In such circumstances, it can be
inferred that the informant/complainant did not support the
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 10 --
9 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
prosecution to prove the charge levelled against the accused persons.
14. In the present case on hand, the prosecution did not
examine another victim and eye witnesses. So also the prosecution did
not prove the spot of incident. There are material contradiction and
omission in the evidence adduced by the informant/complainant. The
prosecution did not examine the investigating officer to remove such
contradiction and omission. Thus, the evidence placed on record falls
short to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to record my finding
in negative for points no. 1 to 4.
The logical corollary of my aforesaid findings leads me to
pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The accused No.1 Ashok Janardan Choudhary, accused No.2
Raj @ Bhairavnath Bholanath Soni, accused No.3 Suraj
Awadhnarayan Giri and accused No.4 Robin Mahendra
Lidha are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section
354, 323, 509, 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 to 4 stand cancelled.
3 The seized muddemal property i.e. two D.V.D.'s of Soni
Company which were shown in the chargesheet be returned to
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 10 --
10 C.C.No.2830/PW/2018
Exh.07
the informant after the appeal period is over.
4 The accused No.1 to 4 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 : 29.01.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 29.01.2024
Signed On: 29.01.2024
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde),
M.M.44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 10 of 10 --