A sessions court in Panchkula delivered a significant verdict on Monday, acquitting five young men accused in a snatching case. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, pointing to critical flaws in the evidence presented.
Court Cites Major Flaws in Evidence
Presiding over the case, Judge Ved Parkash Sirohi highlighted several fundamental weaknesses that led to the collapse of the prosecution's argument. The judge scrutinized the complainant's testimony, the process used to identify the accused, and the recoveries allegedly made by the police, finding all of them insufficient to secure a conviction.
The five individuals who have been acquitted are Ramvir, Zorawar, Sachin, Sukhvir Singh, and Kuldeep Singh. All were residents of Zirakpur and originally hailed from the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Identification Process and Testimony Under Scrutiny
Advocate Deepanshu Bansal, representing the accused, successfully argued the case's shortcomings. During cross-examination, the complainant, Ashutosh Kumar Rai, admitted a crucial lapse: his initial complaint did not mention any distinguishing physical features of the snatchers, nor did it state that he could identify them later.
The court took serious note of this omission. It observed that Rai first saw the accused only during the official test identification parade, a fact that severely weakened the reliability of the identification evidence presented against them.
Contradictions in Complainant's Statements
Further damaging the prosecution's case were major inconsistencies in the complainant's own accounts. In his original complaint filed with the police, Ashutosh Kumar Rai had mentioned the involvement of "2–3 boys on a motorcycle and an Activa".
However, when giving his testimony in court, his version changed dramatically. He then claimed that "six boys on two motorcycles" were involved in the incident. This stark contradiction raised serious questions about the consistency and accuracy of the complainant's narrative.
By pointing out these critical failures—the weak identification process and the contradictory statements—the court concluded that the prosecution had not met the high standard of proof required in a criminal case. The principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" was not satisfied, leading to the acquittal of all five accused persons.
