Two let off in 8 snatching cases due to Chandigarh police’s ‘shoddy’ probe

The complainants were declared hostile in court as they were “suppressing truth” and not supporting the prosecution’s case.

Chandigarh Citing “intentional” and “faulty” investigation on the part of Chandigarh Police, the district court has acquitted two men accused in eight cases of snatching that took in April 2015.

HT Image

The two men are Kamal Thakur of Bilaspur and Harpreet of Mohali.

In April 2015, police received four complaints of two bike-borne men snatching gold jewellery. Cases were registered under Sections 379 (theft) and 356 (assault of criminal force in attempt to commit theft or property carried by person) of the Indian Penal Code at the Sector 11 police station.

However, in court, the complainants were declared hostile as they were “suppressing truth” and not supporting the prosecution’s case.

“They (witnesses) are complainant as well as eyewitness of the incident. Their testimony is most relevant to prove the allegation… once main witnesses have turned hostile, then that means identity of the accused are not proved,” the order stated.

From the deposition of investigating officer (IO) Mohan Kashyap, it became clear that when the accused joined investigation, they were already in custody (with regard to some other case) and gold articles were already recovered by the previous IO, sub-inspector Kuldeep Singh.

The court observed that SI Kuldeep Singh was the main witness, and in the absence of his testimony, the alleged recovery cannot be proved.

“Testimony of the present IO (Kashyap) is of no relevance because the main witness to the recovery (Kuldeep Singh) was not examined by the prosecution. Hence, this court is bound to hold that the IO has not conducted the investigation in accordance with law and also has not made all the available evidence as witness in the present case,” the court observed.

The judge added that “There is intentional fault on (Kashyap’s) part”, as there was no explanation to why he did not make Kuldeep Singh join the probe despite his availability.

“The investigation in that regard is faulty and not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused,” the order said, while acquitting the two.

In another case, four similar FIRs were registered against the two. In court, two complainants turned hostile, as they could not identify the accused.

The other two said they did not provide physical description of the accused persons and did not know from where the accused were arrested or from where the recovery was made.

The judge observed: “Evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the identity of the accused persons, because the accused persons were not described in the complaint.”

The judge also pointed to the police’s failure to conduct the test identification parade of the accused persons in accordance with law.

“In absence of any reliable evidence, the identity of the accused is not proved. Therefore, allegations are not proved,” the order stated.