Chandigarh: 6 years on, ₹20 robbery case falls through as prosecution fails to prove case

According to the FIR, complainant Shiva of Kishangarh, who worked at a hotel in Sector 26, was returning home with his friends Vijay and Anil when four persons allegedly surrounded them near the Government Middle School, Kishangarh

The trial into a 2019 case over robbery of just ₹20 fell apart after six years as a Panchkula court let off the four accused citing prosecution failure to prove the case.

Slamming the prosecution, the court held that without the testimony of the complainant, it could not be established that the recovered items were stolen/robbed property. (HT Photo for representation)

Those acquitted are Parvesh Kumar, 21, and Sunil, 23, both residents of Kishangarh, Chandigarh; Alok Kumar, 21, of Dhanas; and Shubham Panday, 19, of Saketri. They were booked under Sections 392 and 34 of the IPC in connection with an incident on March 27, 2019.

According to the FIR, complainant Shiva of Kishangarh, who worked at a hotel in Sector 26, was returning home with his friends Vijay and Anil when four persons allegedly surrounded them near the Government Middle School, Kishangarh. One of the assailants showed him a knife while another snatched his black purse containing ₹20 and an Aadhaar card. The complainant and his friends managed to nab one accused, later identified as Sunil, and handed him over to the police.

The court of additional chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Rahul Garg noted that while the police arrested the accused based on Shiva’s identification and even claimed recovery of the purse, Aadhaar card, cash, and a knife, the case “collapsed in trial”.

During interrogation, one witness, Anil, narrated the incident but failed to identify the accused during cross-examination. He even admitted that some other persons might have committed the crime. More critically, the police and prosecution failed to produce the complainant Shiva, his companion Vijay, and an eyewitness Manoj Kumar before the court despite being given several opportunities over nearly six years.

Slamming the prosecution, the court held that without the testimony of the complainant, it could not be established that the recovered items were stolen/robbed property. “In the absence of the complainant and key witnesses, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the occurrence itself,” the court observed, acquitting all four accused.