E-Paper
Chandigarh: Man gets 5-year jail in snatching case
Court dismisses defence’s contention regarding minor inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including the complainant describing the purse as brown at one stage and black during cross-examination
Three years after a labourer cycling to work lost his wallet to two motorcycle-borne snatchers in Sector 48, a sessions court awarded five-year rigorous imprisonment to one of the accused.
The other accused, a juvenile in conflict with law, had earlier been proceeded against separately before a Juvenile Justice Board.
The case dates to August 22, 2023, when complainant Hari Pal, a labourer, was cycling to work. When he reached near the Motor Market in Sector 48, two men on a motorcycle intercepted him and the pillion rider snatched his wallet containing ₹50 and Aadhaar card. The rider also tried to snatch his mobile phone but failed. As Pal raised the alarm, some passersby intervened and caught the pillion rider, identified as Dinesh. The juvenile, who had been driving, managed to flee but was caught later.
Independent witness turned hostile
During trial, the prosecution stated that the complainant’s wallet was recovered from Dinesh’s possession immediately after the incident. The complainant also identified Dinesh in court and stood by his version during cross-examination. An independent witness, however, denied witnessing the occurrence and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
Rejecting the defence’s argument that the hostile witness rendered the prosecution case doubtful, the court observed that a conviction can safely rest on the testimony of a solitary witness if it is found to be wholly reliable. The judge noted that Pal’s account was “cogent, natural and consistent”, remained unshaken during cross-examination and that there was no evidence of any previous enmity that could have prompted him to falsely implicate the accused.
Defence’s contention of inconsistencies junked
The court also dismissed the defence’s contention regarding minor inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including the complainant describing the purse as brown at one stage and black during cross-examination. Such discrepancies, the court held, did not affect the core prosecution case, particularly when the recovery of the stolen purse from the accused had been consistently proved.
The court further observed that since Dinesh was arrested from the spot, there was practically no possibility of mistaken identity, and held him guilty under Sections 379-A (snatching) and 411 (dishonestly retaining stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code. The court also imposed a ₹25,000 fine on the convict for snatching and ₹2,000 under Section 411 IPC.
Refusing to extend the benefit of probation, the court observed that snatching had become one of the most prevalent street crimes, creating fear and trauma among members of the public, particularly women and senior citizens. It held that such offences required a stern response to deter similar crimes.
The court directed that the period already spent by Dinesh in custody during investigation and trial be set off against the sentence in accordance with law.
