Chandigarh, July 12
A local court has acquitted a Punjabi youth, Kewal Singh, in a robbery case after the prosecution failed to prove the charges. The theft allegedly took place at a doctor’s home.
On a complaint by Dr. Krishan Gauba, Police arrested the accused after registering an FIR under Sections 381 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code on March 3, 2019 at Sector 11 Police Station here.
In the complaint filed with the police, Dr Gauba alleged that he kept Kewal Singh and his wife Sandeep as servants on November 19, 2018. However, the duo suddenly left work on February 25, 2019. They did not no longer answered the phone. calls.
He alleged that upon verification, it was found that banknotes in the amount of US$2,000, Canadian$600, Euros250, Swiss Francs350, Singapore$300 and Indian currency of one worth 20,000 rupees had disappeared from a traveling bag which was kept in the almirah. He doubted that the defendant stole the valuables.
Raman Sihag, the defendant’s attorney, said Kewal Singh was falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution’s case was a bundle of lies and there were several other flaws in its case as well as in the investigative process. He further argued that the relationship of employer and employee between the complainant and the accused had not been established.
After hearing the arguments, Bharat, Magistrate First Class, said the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the defendant’s guilt and he was entitled to acquittal.
The court said that for the commission of an offense punishable under Article 381 of the ICC, the public prosecutor was required to prove that the defendant worked as a servant in the plaintiff’s house. However, in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove officially that the accused had previously worked as a servant for the applicant. No document was filed by the prosecution.
The court said the defendant’s statement was recorded by the police when he was in custody. Neither the complainant nor any other independent person was reached by the investigator during the recording of his statement.
The court said the prosecution was required to prove that ownership of the banknotes allegedly recovered from the defendant belonged to the plaintiff. However, no document was filed by the prosecution to prove that these banknotes belonged to the plaintiff.
During his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he had not mentioned the serial number of the foreign currency notes in his possession and that there were no identifying marks on them. . He also admitted that foreign currency notes were readily available in the market and anyone could get them by paying their value in Indian rupees. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove plaintiff’s ownership of the banknotes beyond a reasonable doubt. For the benefit of the doubt, the accused was acquitted of the charges against him.