The chairperson of a Dadar housing society, Vinod Shah, has been acquitted by a sessions court, overturning a 2014 conviction and three-month jail sentence. The court found insufficient evidence to prove his responsibility for not carrying out necessary repairs despite a notice from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. The court also criticized the prosecution's case, citing incongruent testimonies and inadequate evidence. The verdict emphasizes the need for clear and compelling evidence to support charges and ensure fair judgments in legal proceedings.
A sessions court has overturned a 2014 conviction and three-month jail sentence imposed by a magistrate court on the 52-year-old chairperson of a housing society in Dadar. Vinod Shah, the chairperson of Jasmine Cooperative Housing Society, had been found guilty of failing to carry out necessary repairs despite receiving a notice. The secretary of the society had also been sentenced in the case but passed away while the appeal was pending.
In acquitting Vinod Shah, the sessions court highlighted the defence's argument that both he and the secretary had resigned from their positions in July 2010. The court noted that if the accused were not office-bearers after that date, it was the prosecution's responsibility to establish their continued liability for the offense. Thus, the court emphasized the need for the prosecution to demonstrate their culpability given their alleged lack of involvement in the society's affairs.
The sessions court also questioned the absence of proof regarding the notice issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to the housing society. According to the court, the time provided in the notice for carrying out the repairs was inadequate, considering the nature of the required work. The court further discredited the significance of the structural audit report and second inspection report, deeming them irrelevant since the foundational facts of the prosecution's case were not proven.
Furthermore, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, stating that when considered as a whole, they presented an inconsistent picture. It concluded that the evidence provided by these witnesses was vague and incomplete, lacking in convincing substance. Consequently, the court ruled that no finding of guilt could be based on such inadequate evidence, asserting that the essential elements of the offense had not been established. The sessions court criticized the Metropolitan Magistrate for failing to appropriately evaluate the evidence and basing the accused's guilt on the inappropriate testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution's case revolved around an inspection conducted by BMC engineers on June 15, 2010, which revealed cracks in columns and beams within the Jasmine Co-op Housing Society. Additionally, steel reinforcement was exposed in these areas, and there were reports of leakage from numerous bathrooms in the flats. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the society, instructing them to carry out the necessary repairs. Allegedly, the accused failed to comply with the notice, leading to the initiation of prosecution proceedings after a second notice was similarly disregarded.
In conclusion, the sessions court's decision to set aside the conviction and sentence of Vinod Shah, the chairperson of Jasmine Cooperative Housing Society, was primarily based on the lack of evidence establishing his ongoing responsibility for the offense. The court also criticized the prosecution's case for its insufficient proof, incongruent testimonies, and failure to consider the foundational facts adequately. This verdict highlights the importance of establishing clear and compelling evidence to substantiate charges and ensure fair judgments in legal proceedings.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
