HYDERABAD: Have you heard of a case where the perpetrators have been acquitted and only the benefactors or the beneficiaries are punished by the court of law?
As rare as it may be, in one such case in Telangana, suspected chain snatchers were set free but the goldsmith, who received the stolen goods, has been sent behind bars.
The verdict comes at a time when Telangana police is making strenuous efforts to increase conviction rate in the state and deliver justice to victims.
So, what prompted the judgment? In two words: weak evidence.
"Weak piece of evidence will not be the basis for identification of the accused as offenders," pointed the court in their July 2019 verdict that the New Indian Express has accessed.
The observation was made in a chain-snatching (robbery) case registered at the Adibatla police station of Rachakonda commissionerate in February 2018. The court went on to point out that the evidence on record is inadequate to connect the snatchers and the receiver in the offence.
The verdict has not only come as a setback to the police department, but also left their higher-ups in an embarrassing situation.
During the trial, one of the witnesses deposed before the court that the offenders wore masks and came in the opposite direction. So, the chance of them identifying these offenders was remote.
Apart from this, during the Test Identification Parade(TIP), the victim and the witnesses failed to identify the men behind the crime.
"Therefore this court is of the considered opinion that when the victim and the witness did not identify the offenders during TIP and identification of the offenders in the open court, in the opinion of this court (everything else) is a weak piece of evidence. Therefore such evidence would not be the basis of identification of them as offenders," the court pointed out.
Further the judge found that the statements of the offenders was recorded in the presence of police officers. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence act says that no confession made to a police officer shall be used as proof against a person accused of any offence. It also says that the confession by the accused while in the custody of police cannot to be used against him.
Based on this, the court observed that the confessions recorded cannot implicate the offenders and set the four alleged snatchers free.
While dealing with the goldsmith, the court stated that as the stolen property was in his possession, it was for him to disprove the charges. But he had failed to do so. Despite acquitting him of robbery charges, the court therefore found him guilty of receiving stolen property and jailed him.