E-Paper
Panchkula court sets bike theft accused free over probe lapses
The court remarked that the prosecution had failed to place even a single piece of convincing evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused
A local court has acquitted Mandeep Singh alias Monu of Kalka in a motorcycle theft case, highlighting serious lapses in the prosecution’s case, particularly the absence of independent witnesses and failure to produce CCTV footage from the alleged place of occurrence.
Mandeep was arrested on May 24, 2022, based on an FIR registered on May 7, 2022, at Sector-7 police station under Sections 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The court of the judicial magistrate pronounced the acquittal on February 4.
According to the prosecution, complainant Sanjeev Kumar had reported the theft of his motorcycle on the evening of May 6, 2022, from outside the gate of civil hospital, Sector 6, where he had gone to collect medicines.
During the investigation, police arrested Mandeep and another accused, Rahul (who had already undergone trial), and claimed recovery of the stolen motorcycle on the basis of their disclosure statements. However, during the trial, key prosecution witnesses admitted several shortcomings. ASI Mohammad Anwar stated in cross-examination that he did not collect the hospital card from the complainant.
Similarly, ASI Satish Kumar admitted that although recovered articles are ordinarily deposited in the malkhana, the registration certificate (RC) of the motorcycle was never deposited in this case.
On the aspect of recovery, EASI Joginder Pal admitted that no private witness was present at the time of recording the disclosure statements of the accused. He further deposed that the motorcycle was allegedly recovered in the presence of family members of accused Mandeep, yet none of them were cited or examined as witnesses, nor were their names mentioned in the recovery memo.
The court also noted that the motorcycle was allegedly recovered without a number plate and in a different colour.
It observed that the prosecution was duty-bound to independently prove the commission of the offence and should have relied upon complaint, FIR and endorsement merely for the purpose of corroborating the evidence as led by them in the present case.
The court remarked that the prosecution had failed to place even a single piece of convincing evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused.
Emphasising the CCTV angle, the court pointed out that the alleged place of occurrence—Civil Hospital, Sector 6—is a public and crowded area, where the presence of CCTV cameras could reasonably be presumed. Despite this, the prosecution neither examined any independent witness present at the spot nor produced any CCTV footage or photographs to support its case.
The court further observed that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership and identity of the alleged stolen motorcycle. Although ASI Mohammad Anwar admitted that the complainant had handed over the RC to the investigating officer, the document was never produced in court. Due to this omission, the identity of the vehicle and its ownership could not be assumed.
Additionally, the recovery memo prepared after the alleged recovery from the accused’s house was not supported by any independent witness, further weakening the prosecution’s version.
In view of these glaring deficiencies, the court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case and that the possibility of false implication of the accused could not be ruled out. Consequently, Mandeep Singh was acquitted of all charges.
