Two Chandigarh residents get benefit of doubt, acquitted in robbery case
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Chandigarh, May 6
While observing that the entire story of the prosecution is not worthy of credence, Additional Sessions Judge Jaibir Singh has acquitted two persons – Govind and Suraj, residents of New Indira Colony, Mani Majra, Chandigarh – in a robbery case after the prosecution failed to prove charges.
The police registered the FIR on the complaint of Mohan Kamu. The complainant said he was returning home on his bicycle after his duty at a restaurant in Sector 26, Chandigarh, around 2.30 am on April 12, 2022. When he reached near the road separating Sector 19 and 27, two boys coming from the Sector 27 side stopped him and asked him to handover all valuables. One of the boys was carrying a knife.
Mohan tried to escape, but the duo caught hold of him. One of the boys stabbed him on his left leg. While defending, he also suffered an injury on his finger. The boys snatched his mobile phone and fled on a motorcycle with another accomplice who was waiting for them on the road separating Sector 19 and 20. During investigation, the police arrested the accused. A chargesheet was submitted before the court.
Finding a prima facie case, the court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Sector 19 police station to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Yadvinder Singh Sandhu, counsel for accused Govind, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. He said the FIR was registered against unidentified persons, but the accused was arrested in a false case. The public prosecutor said the prosecution had proved the case beyond a shadow of doubt.
After hearing the arguments, the court acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. The court said during cross-examination, the complainant ruined the case of the prosecution, stating that the police had obtained his signatures on several papers, including some blank papers, and he did not know the contents thereof.
The court said neither any CCTV footage of the place was produced on record nor there was any explanation from the prosecution side that why even no attempt was made to collect the CCTV footage, which would have been a material piece of evidence. In view of this, the accused were hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt.
