Chandigarh, February 23
The Supreme Court has time and again held that between ‘May be true’ and ‘Must be true’, there is a long distance to travel, which must be covered by clear, cogent and un-impeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned as a convict.
Observing this, Parmod Kumar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, acquitted an accused in a theft case. The court acquitted Monu Rajput, a resident of Sector 42, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to bring the complainant as witness during the trial.
As per the prosecution, the accused was arrested in a case registered on April 22, 2013, following a complaint of Hitesh Raj Sharma, a resident of Sector 22-B.
The complainant had stated that on April 21, 2013, someone stole two taps and three grills from the verandah of his house. During investigation, Monu was arrested for the theft.
Mandeep Kumar and Kashish Jain, the counsel for the accused, argued that the prosecution had failed to present the complainant as witness. They argued that the alleged theft items allegedly recovered from the accused were not the same as the police had claimed in the FIR.
After hearing of the arguments, the court acquitted the accused. It observed that summons issued to the complainant returned unserved six times with the report that the house was found locked and no such person was residing at the given address.
A perusal of the case file revealed that charges in the case were framed on December 6, 2021, but the prosecution was unable to conclude its evidence. The prosecution also failed to secure the complainant’s presence.
