Court acquits accused in cell phone snatching case
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 24
Saying that there are multiple contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, Renu Goyal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh, has acquitted a person arrested on the charge of snatching a mobile phone from a woman around four years ago.
The police had registered a case on a complaint of a woman, Shikha Rana. The complainant stated that when she was talking on her mobile phone in front of her house on June 19, 2016, a boy came from behind and snatched her mobile phone before fleeing from the spot on a motorcycle.
On the basis of her statement, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 356, 379 and 411 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the accused, Arvind Kumar, was arrested. A challan was presented in the court. On finding a prima facie case, charges were framed against the accused in 2017 which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In the challan, the police claimed that the accused was arrested at a naka laid near the beat box in Sector 38, Chandigarh, on July 2, 2016. They claimed that a motorcycle-borne youth, Arvind, was seen coming from the Sector 37 side. The police signalled him to stop for checking and sought documents of the vehicle.
Meanwhile, the complainant, who was also accompanying the police, identified the biker, who snatched her mobile phone. The police claimed that on checking, a mobile phone was recovered from him and the complainant also identified her mobile phone.
Defence counsel Anil Sharma argued that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. Sharma further argued that the prosecution had not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Sharma said there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses.
After hearing the arguments, the court said there was a contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. The court said the complainant deposed that she reached the naka between 6:30 pm and 7 pm. She was not called by any police official at the naka and she went there on her own alone. A constable deposed that the investigating officer called the complainant at the naka laid between 1:30 pm and 1:45 pm. So, there was a contradiction regarding the time of laying the naka and the fact that how the complainant reached there.
These contradictions in the prosecution case have obviously put a dent in their story. Further, the case of prosecution is dependent upon the testimony of the complainant and police officials only.
Undisputedly, the alleged recovery has been effected from a highly crowded area of Sector 38, Chandigarh. So, it was essential for the investigating officer to join some independent witness of the area/locality at the time of effecting the alleged recovery as per the mandate of Section 100(4) of the CrPC. However, the investigating officer did not join any independent witness, which is fatal to the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Further, the prosecution has not been able to prove the ownership of the mobile phone stated to be belonging to the complainant. Moreover, the recovery alleged to be effected from the accused is highly doubtful and the entire story of the prosecution has become untrustworthy. Consequently, accused Arvind Kumar is acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 356, 379 and 411 of the IPC.
