Panchkula: How can 2-ft purse be hidden under arm, questions court, lets off snatching accused

A Panchkula sessions court notes that the complainant, in her cross-examination, admitted that no test identification parade of the accused was conducted by the police

A sessions court in Panchkula acquitted a youth, accused of a snatching a woman’s purse on a train, on Tuesday. The court wasn’t convinced with the police theory that the accused had hid the one-to-two-feet wide purse below his arm under his T-shirt.

The court wasn’t convinced with the police theory that the accused had hid the one-to-two-feet wide purse below his arm under his T-shirt.

The case was registered by the government railway police (GRP), Chandigarh, against the accused, Jitender Yadav, in April 2023. Paramjit Kaur, who was travelling in Pashchim Express from Mumbai to Jalandhar, had mentioned in her complaint that a young boy in a T-shirt and jeans snatched her cream-coloured purse and jumped off the train. As per the prosecution, policemen patrolling the railway station in Chandigarh received information that a boy was hiding a lady’s purse, suspected to be stolen, under his T-shirt. Yadav was arrested and a purse containing an Aadhar card, railway ticket, ₹8,550 and other items belonging to complainant was seized, according to the prosecution.

During the trial, the complainant identified Yadav as the one who snatched her purse. She said she informed her husband Harpal Singh who then filed a complaint. However, the court raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative, particularly regarding the alleged recovery of the stolen purse. The court questioned how a purse, described as being one to two feet in width, could be concealed by the accused under his arm inside his T-shirt?

The court also pointed out discrepancies in the initial complaint and the subsequent police action. The initial complaint filed by Harpal Singh described the incident as a theft from seat number 73 in coach number S3 of train number 12925. However, the police registered the case under Sections 379-A and 411 of the IPC, related to snatching rather than theft.

The court further noted that the complainant had not initially provided a physical description of the accused to the police. The complainant, in her cross-examination, admitted that no test identification parade of the accused was conducted by the police. The court observed that the accused was shown to her by the police after his arrest, which could have influenced his identification by her in court.