‘Improbable’ police theory draws court’s ire

CHANDIGARH: Can a stolen motorcycle hidden by the thief in a place of public glare remain hidden there for over a year? The UT police relied on this “improbable” theory in the case of the arrest of a motorcycle thief way back in 2010 and also put it before the court inviting its ire.

Aneesha Sareen

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 25

Can a stolen motorcycle hidden by the thief in a place of public glare remain hidden there for over a year? The UT police relied on this “improbable” theory in the case of the arrest of a motorcycle thief way back in 2010 and also put it before the court inviting its ire.

The court, in a recent order, acquitted the thief in the appeal case and lambasted the prosecution for false implication of the accused.

The court acquitted Abdul Razaq, a colony resident, while accepting his appeal against his conviction pronounced on February 15 this year. According to the police, the accused, who was arrested in 2010 in another case, “suffered disclosure statement” regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question on February 24, 2009, and it was then recovered.

“The recovery of the motorcycle is stated to have been made from near the boundary wall of the Snehalaya building, alleged to be a jungle area of Maloya village. The theft of the motorcycle took place on February 24, 2009, and according to the prosecution, it was recovered on March 13, 2010, after a period of more than one year. From the site plan, it is not clear as to how the said place was a secluded place not accessible to the general public, where such a big thing — a motorcycle could be hidden without the knowledge of passersby. The place might be frequented by the public at large because of the Snehalaya building there. It appears quite improbable that the motorcycle would have been concealed and would have been remained hidden from the eyes of the people passing by,” said the court of Additional Sessions Judge Nazar Singh in the order.

The prosecution was also at the receiving end for not examining the complainant in the court.

“The entire case of the prosecution was based on the testimony of the complainant, but he has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it,” said the court.

“No disclosure statement, as stated by the investigating officer, has been brought on record. The trial court fell in error while convicting the appellant only on the statement of police witnesses. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of imprisonment and that of fine passed by the lower court against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him,” said the court.

The matter

The case was registered on February 26, 2009, at the Sector 17 police station.

The court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Dazy Bangarh, on February 15 this year, held the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 411 and 482 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs 1,000 for the offences. The convict filed an appeal and the accused has been acquitted.