Court Acquits Two After Police Fail to Prove Snatching Case

In a significant legal development, a local court in Mohali has acquitted two individuals accused of snatching a woman’s gold chain in Kurali, citing the prosecution’s failure to provide sufficient evidence. The court’s decision came after the complainant and an eyewitness did not support the police’s allegations and turned hostile during the trial.

Incident Overview: The incident dates back to October 31, 2023, when Prabhjot Kaur of Rupnagar reported to the police that she was out shopping with her sister-in-law, Sandeep Kaur, in Kurali. Around 3:50 PM, two men on a motorcycle stopped them to ask for directions to Singhpura Road. Shortly after providing the directions, one of the men allegedly snatched Prabhjot’s gold chain and fled the scene on their bike.

Police Investigation and Arrests: Prabhjot Kaur could not identify the motorcycle’s number plate or the faces of the accused at the time of the incident. However, she later conducted her own inquiries and identified the suspects as Anmolpreet Singh of Neulka village and Harmanpreet Singh of Kurali. Following this, Kurali police registered a case on November 1, 2023, under sections 379-B, 34, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The police apprehended the accused at a check post near Niholka Road, Kurali, and claimed to have recovered Prabhjot’s gold chain from them. However, the accused maintained that no recovery was made from them and that the police planted the evidence to solve the case.

Court Proceedings and Verdict: During the trial, the complainant and the eyewitness did not identify the accused and contradicted the police’s narrative. Prabhjot Kaur testified that her signatures were taken on blank papers by the police, and the eyewitness stated that her statement was not recorded.

Jaswinder Singh, the counsel for the accused, argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the key witnesses did not support the allegations. The Mohali Sessions Judge, Atul Kasana, observed that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to convict the accused.

The court noted, “The onus was on the prosecution to prove its case, but the evidence on file reveals that the prosecution had miserably failed in proving that it was the accused facing trial who had committed the offence of snatching. The complainant and the eyewitness remained categorical during their statements and cross-examination by the additional public prosecutor, that they had not named the accused. It is, thus, unclear as to who disclosed the names of the snatchers to the police.”

The court further pointed out that the victim did not corroborate the police’s claims about the presence of the accused at the check post during the recovery of the gold chain. “The entire version of the prosecution as qua apprehending of the accused as well as recovery of the snatched gold chain being affected from him, is rendered doubtful,” the court pronounced while acquitting the accused.

This case underscores the importance of thorough and credible evidence in criminal proceedings and highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice based on facts and reliable testimonies.

For ongoing and detailed coverage of legal developments, business news, and real-time updates on law and politics, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this news article informative, please share it with a friend!