Chandigarh: Snatching case falls flat as court acquits two
The judge questioned how police arrested the accused given the complainant provided no description in his initial report;this lack of description, coupled with complainant Prince’s inability to identify the accused in court, severely weakened the prosecution’s claims
Two men accused of snatching a mobile phone from a Swiggy delivery boy last May were acquitted by the court of additional district and sessions judge Arunvir Vashishta, citing a complete lack of evidence against them. The court stated the prosecution’s case was so weak that the accused deserved immediate acquittal, raising serious doubts about the police investigation.
The incident, reported on May 29, 2024, involved complainant Prince, a Swiggy delivery boy in Sector 52, Kajheri. He alleged two individuals on an Activa scooter snatched his phone near Sector 50. Despite Prince’s claim he could identify the culprits, his testimony in court proved crucial to the defence.
The prosecution’s case hinged on the arrest of Vijay Kumar, 22, of Bihar, and Arun, 23, also from Bihar, under Sections 379-A, 411, and 34 of the IPC. However, the court highlighted critical flaws in the prosecution’s narrative.
The judge questioned how police arrested the accused given the complainant provided no description in his initial report. This lack of description, coupled with Prince’s later inability to identify the accused in court, severely weakened the prosecution’s claims.
Adding to the prosecution’s woes, Prince testified that he had no idea from whom the police recovered the phone, directly contradicting the prosecution’s account of the recovery. He was declared hostile by the public prosecutor.
The court emphasised the prosecution’s failure to prove any connection between the accused and the crime. “The complainant…specifically deposed that he doesn’t know from whom the case property was recovered…He also failed to identify the accused persons in the court,” the judge observed.
The court further noted the implausibility of the complainant’s ability to identify the perpetrators who approached him from behind and fled quickly. “As such, it was not made clear at all as to when and how the complainant could get a chance to see the accused,” the judgment says. The court deemed the testimony of the police officials as unhelpful, given their inherent interest in the prosecution’s success. In short, the prosecution’s story was deemed “totally untrustworthy.”