Ruling that recovery of a stolen item was not important for conviction in a snatching case, a local court here sentenced a 19-year-old to five-year rigorous imprisonment for allegedly snatching a wallet containing over ₹84,000 on Mehrauli-Gurugram Road last year. The court also imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the convict.
Pronouncing the judgment, Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Sondhi rejected the contention of the defence counsel that recovery of money from Suraj’s possession was not incriminating evidence.
Mr. Sondhi said the identity of the accused as a snatcher was the only relevant issue in a snatching case and even if it was assumed that nothing was recovered from the accused, it made no difference.
The complainant in the case, Rajiv Nagar resident Manjit Saini, was on the way home from Sikanderpur on May 27, 2017, around 1 a.m. when he stopped at a kiosk on M.G. Road to buy a cold drink. As he took out his wallet, Suraj, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, snatched it and fled towards Chakkarpur village. He was arrested the next day after Mr. Saini lodged a First Information Report. The police recovered ₹21,000 from Suraj.
Public Prosecutor Anurag Hooda contended that Suraj’s arrest within 24 hours, recovery of ₹21,000 at his instance and his identification by the complainant in court within three to four months categorically proved that he was the snatcher. However, the defence counsel argued the wallet was actually snatched by a woman travelling in Suraj’s autorickshaw. The defence also argued that there was no occasion for the complainant to see the accused.
Mr. Sondhi said the defence counsel’s contention that a woman was the snatcher seemed to be a mere afterthought as such a plea had not been put forward during cross-examination of the complainant. He added that the defence had not attributed any motive or enmity to the complainant for falsely implicating the accused.
The judge also accepted the prosecution’s plea that the victim had the opportunity to see the snatcher since the incident took place during late hours and there was no rush. Mr. Sondhi also pointed out in the judgment that the fact Suraj had refused to join the test identification parade without an explanation showed he was aware the victim would identify him. Mr. Sondhi also quoted a Supreme Court order, ‘Dana Yadav alias Dahu and others vs. State of Bihar’ to reject the contention of the defence that Suraj’s identification for the first time in court after a lapse of four months was inadmissible.
