Court junks prosecution theory, acquits 2 accused in snatching case

A local court has acquitted two persons Avdesh Kumar and Varinder, arrested in a snatching case after the prosecution failed to prove charges.

A case was registered on September 11, 2022, under sections 379-A, 34, 411 of IPC at Sector 34 police station on the complaint of Pankaj Kashyap, a resident of Burail village, Sector 45 here.

In his complainant, Pankaj, a daily wager, told the police that he was going for work in Sector 32, when two boys intercepted him.

While one of them allegedly caught hold of his bicycle, the other boy snatched his mobile phone, he told the police.

As they fled from the scene, the complainant allegedly followed them and caught one of the accused -- Avdesh Kumar alias Rinku. During investigation, other accused Varinder was also arrested from a park in Sector 46.

Finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 379-A read with Sections 34 and 411 of IPC were framed against the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state argued that prosecution has fully proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, counsel for both the accused argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

He claimed that the complainant falsely implicated the accused due to personal animosity. After hearing the arguments, the court acquitted the accused persons.

The court said that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the statement of complainant Pankaj Kashyap. But, there are many discrepancies that were found in the statement made by the complainant which makes the case of prosecution doubtful.

Complainant Pankaj Kashyap failed to prove as to how his snatched mobile phone was recovered from the accused as admittedly he himself had handed over his mobile phone to the police.

In his examination-in-chief, firstly it was stated by the complainant that the public had caught one of the accused who had thrown away his snatched mobile phone, but subsequently in the same breath, he stated that his mobile phone was recovered from the accused who was apprehended by the public.

Complainant also could not tell how police had reached the spot. It is apparent that the police were called by making a call from the mobile phone of the complainant which makes it doubtful that the mobile phone was snatched.

In view of this, both the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them giving them the benefit of doubt.