Man gets one-year RI for keeping stolen item

Chandigarh, November 1

A local court has sentenced Bharat (alias Pikachu), resident of Dhanas, to one year of rigorous imprisonment after he was convicted under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC.

Acquitted of snatching charge

• The court, however, acquitted him of the charges framed under Section 379-A (snatching with force) of the IPC after the prosecution failed to prove the charge
• The matter was reported to the police 11 days after the incident took place, the court observed, while also noting that there was an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR

The court, however, acquitted him of the charges framed under Section 379-A (snatching with force) of the IPC after the prosecution failed to prove the charge.

The police had registered the case on May 10 following a complaint by Aarti, a resident of Sector 25, Chandigarh. The complainant said that she had to visit Dhanas for some work-related reason on April 29. While she was there, a youth snatched her mangalsutra, which was made of gold, and fled the spot. Days later, on May 11, the police nabbed Pikachu in front of the Community Centre in Dhanas. The stolen mangalsutra was recovered from his possession.

Upon the completion of the investigation, a challan was presented against him in court. Charges were framed against Pikachu under Sections 379-A and 411 of the IPC, but he pleaded not guilty.

His counsel, Divay Sarup, argued that it was a false case. Sarup also claimed that the investigation into the matter had been conducted in an unfair manner. After hearing the arguments, Chandigarh Sessions Judge Arunvir Vashista acquitted Pikachu of the charges framed under Section 379-A of the IPC but convicted him under Section 411. The court observed that the complainant’s statement could not establish the identification of the youth involved in snatching.

Moreover, the matter was reported to the police 11 days after the incident took place, the court observed, while also noting that there was an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. Besides, the court pointed out that the police complaint did not contain any description of the person who committed the crime. Notably, in his deposition, the investigating officer stated that he had received a tip-off about the suspect on May 11. It raised questions about how the police came to know about the identity of the suspect. Such lapses cast a cloud over the case made by the prosecution.