E-Paper
Panchkula: 2 snatching accused let off as prosecution case falls flat
The case stemmed from a complaint by Parveen Kumar, husband of victim Prem Bhasin. On June 4, 2021, Bhasin reported that while returning from a morning walk around 7 am, two individuals on a motorcycle snatched her gold chain and fled towards Budanpur village.
A sessions court has acquitted two men accused in a 2021 gold chain snatching case, citing numerous flaws in the prosecution’s evidence. Vicky of Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, and Sumit Kumar alias Shagun of Karnal, Haryana, were booked by Sector-14 police in a case registered under Section 379-A of the IPC.
The case stemmed from a complaint by Parveen Kumar, husband of victim Prem Bhasin. On June 4, 2021, Bhasin reported that while returning from a morning walk around 7 am, two individuals on a motorcycle snatched her gold chain and fled towards Budanpur village.
During the investigation, police apprehended Vicky and Sumit on June 22, 2021, along with the motorcycle from Barwala Road, Derabassi. Vicky purportedly led police to a jeweler’s shop in Wazirabad, Delhi, where the chain was allegedly sold. He later recovered ₹38,000 from his Ghaziabad flat, out of his ₹45,000 share from the sale. Sumit allegedly recovered ₹4,000 from his home in Karnal, from his ₹15,000 share.
However, the court, presided over by sessions judge VP Sirohi, found significant inconsistencies. Complainant Parveen Kumar failed to identify either accused, stating he wasn’t present during the incident. The victim, Prem Bhasin, only identified Vicky but couldn’t identify Sumit. She further stated that Vicky was wearing a mask, and police failed to conduct a test identification parade.
SI Raj Pal Singh, a subsequent investigating officer, admitted the complaint lacked physical descriptions of the snatchers. SI Ravi Prakash, the first IO, stated that CCTV footage (converted to CD) only captured movements “about 2 seconds after the snatching,” and the faces of the snatchers were obscured by helmets. The court questioned how the victim could identify them if their faces were not visible in the footage.
Furthermore, the jeweler, Mata Pher Dubey, who allegedly bought the chain, denied knowing the accused, weakening the prosecution’s claim. The court also noted that there was no proof linking the recovered currency notes directly to the sale of the stolen chain, and the recovery locations were accessible to others, preventing a claim of “exclusive possession.”
The court also highlighted that the complainant’s initial report did not include the motorcycle’s registration number, leaving no concrete evidence to prove the alleged Delhi-registered motorcycle was involved. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution “miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” leading to their acquittal.
