E-Paper
‘Recovery of purse doesn’t prove guilt’: Chandigarh court lets off snatching accused
After the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, the court of district and sessions judge Harbir Singh Dahiya acquitted Amarjeet Singh of Baltana in Mohali, granting him the benefit of doubt
{Panchkula snatching case}
A local court, while acquitting a Mohali resident of charges of snatching. Observed that the accused cannot be held guilty “solely on the basis of recovery of the purse”.
After the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, the court of district and sessions judge Harbir Singh Dahiya acquitted Amarjeet Singh of Baltana in Mohali granting him the benefit of doubt.
The case was registered on the complaint of Neena Sharma, who told police that she lost her purse to a snatcher while walking towards her brother’s home from the Sector 20 market around 1 pm on February 1. She lost her driving Licence, Aadhaar card, PAN card, credit and debit cards, ₹8,500 and a polythene bag containing a newly-purchased suit.
A snatching case had at the time been registered against the accused on February 1, 2022, at the Sector 20 police station.
Police later arrested accused Amarjeet on February 28, 2022 and recovered the stolen purse from him.
However, his defence claimed false implication, arguing that the complainant had failed to identify the accused. The defence counsel said the recovery of the bag, a small purse and other articles is not proved beyond doubt. No independent witness joined either at the time of recording the disclosure statement of the accused or at the time of recovery.
Complainant failed to identify accused
The court said the most material witness, Neena Sharma, failed to identify the accused. Police had claimed that the recovered purse was identified by the complainant at the crime branch, Sector 19, on April 17, 2022.
However, later before the court, the prosecution failed to prove that the bag snatched was the same that was recovered on disclosure of the accused. The investigating officer in the court had stated that such bags are easily available in the market. “Therefore, when such types of articles are easily available in the market, a mistake in identification of the aforesaid purse to be of the complainant cannot be ruled out,” read the court order.
The court held: “Solely on the basis of recovery of aforesaid purse, accused cannot be held guilty. The articles which could have directly connected the accused with the present case are the driving licence, Aadhaar card, PAN card etc. of the complainant.
The investigating officer had stated that aforesaid articles were not recovered by the accused.
