SUBASHISH B MALLICK V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Ms Sapna Shukla was a well-educated woman, she had completed her PGDM Course in Insurance from National Insurance Academy, Pune. After completing her graduation the deceased victim got a job in HDFC Life Insurance, where she worked as a Deputy Manager, in Bandra Kurla Complex.
On 6th December 2016, the deceased victim, Sapna Shukla, began her journey from her office, which is in Ghatkopar. Around 8 pm, The deceased victim reached Kurla Railway Station and was waiting for the local train at Platform No 1. The accused was following her with a malicious motive of snatching the chain which was around her neck. The deceased victim was standing near the platform.
The accused noticed that the local has almost arrived at the platform, he went near the victim and he snatched the gold chain from her neck. In response to see, who snatched her gold chain, as soon as she turned back, the accused knowingly and intentionally pushed her towards the track, as result of which the deceased victim died.
After realizing that the victim committed a heinous offence, he ran towards the public at large, but the public caught hold of accused and handed him over to the police. After the incident, the victim was taken to Sion Hospital, where she was declared dead.
Hence, being aggrieved by the loss of deceased victim since, she was a sole bread earner for the family her father as an Intervener filed the Intervention Application before the Juvenile Justice, which is situated at Dongri, Mumbai Division.
The Maharashtra State Police has registered an F.I.R against accused under Section 304, 393 of Indian Penal Code. The main issues before the Ho’ble Court was, firstly, whether the accused is guilty for the offence. Secondly, whether the accused can be tried in Sessions Court and thirdly, whether the accused is entitled for bail.
It was submitted by Court that, it is clearly seen from CCTV footage, that victim girl was standing at the railway station and she fell down because she was pushed down by the accused. It is also pertinent, that when the girl fell down she looked back to ascertain who has pushed her. The position in which the girl fell it clearly shows that she was pushed by applicant. It was contended by the accused that, no one had seen the incident, and people standing around deceased victim had not seen the incident. It was submitted to the Ho’ble court that if there was no one at the scene of offence, as witness and if no one had seen the incident, then why the public would have caught the accused and submitted him to police custody, which is clearly seen from CCTV footage.
Hence, the Ho’ble Court held that accused is guilty of offence and his contention are frivolous and baseless. The applicant also contended that, he is an good boy and a good student having good records in examination, and he scored good marks in examination.
The Ho’ble Court quashed their contention and held that contention of applicant are not true, since the bail application has itself admittedly said that due to owing to fear that he will score less, he ran away with his best friend Sunil.
Hence, the applicant also contends that he was going to Kurla Railway Station from Platform No 1, to another platform to catch a train for CST, from where he can board Konark Express and from where he can return back to his home. The applicant has stated that station was very much crowded, and he was searching bridges to move to platform No.1.
The judge had quashed the contention on a reasoning that, if accused was unaware about the station, how could he reach Kurla Railway Station, and why was he waiting at Kurla Station, since Konark Express does not stop at Kurla Station.
The Ho’ble Court held that, the accused is guilty under sections 397 of Indian Penal Code, hence, accused should be tried as an adult and shall be tried under Sessions Court. The Ho’ble Court, also held that the accused are also not entitled for bail because, since, the bail application fails to demonstrate that how the accused has reached Kurla Railway Station, in which he contends that he ran away from home owing to fear that he may score low in exams.
But at the first instance, the applicant fails to demonstrate how he reached Kurla Railway Station and what he was doing there. Hence, the Juvenile Justice board, Dongri, Mumbai Division held the accused shall be tried as an adult under sections 18(3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The above said case is still pending in the sessions court of Mumbai.