Evidence corroborates the incident

Evidence corroborates the incident written by Diksha Sharma student of Government Law College, Mumbai

Rajib Dey vs The State of Tripura

Facts:

A case was lodged against the petitioner for entering the premises of the respondent and snatching a gold chain from the neck of the respondent’s grandson. People living nearby detained the accused and recovered a gold chain from his possession following which the accused was handed over to the police. The trial framed charges against the accused after examining all the prosecution witnesses and was sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The accused petitioner aggrieved by the decision filed an appeal to dismiss the judgment set by the trial court.

Issues:

Whether the accused is liable under criminal trespass and extortion?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 384,IPC – Punishment for extortion
• Section 411, IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen property
• Section 447, IPC – Punishment for criminal trespass

Petitioner’s Contention:

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had erred in its decision without verifying the evidence. It was further submitted that the conviction of the accused under either Section 384 or Section 411 did not seem valid because the ingredients of the stated offense are completely different from each other. There is nothing to prove if the gold chain belongs to the respondent’s grandson and had not been produced before the court which implies that allegedly the accused has been framed for the said charges. It was pleaded to acquit the accused.

Respondent’s Contention:

It was submitted by the learned counsel that prosecution witnesses had in their submissions made clear about the presence of the accused and carrying a gold chain in his possession. It was after the hue and cry of the child that attention was drawn spotting the accused at the place of the incident. It was, therefore, pleaded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner.

Observations of the court:

After going through the contentions presented by both parties, it was observed that no evidence could be laid down to prove if the property received was stolen or even dishonestly received. None of the prosecution witnesses produced before the court were able to confirm as to when, where, and how the accused was detained. A person who has been said to have been found with possession of the stolen property cannot be put under the provision of Section 411 unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no strong evidence which corroborates the aforesaid event.

Judgment:

The court delivered a judgment of acquitting the accused due to lack of evidence to prove if he’s guilty and therefore all the charges framed against him are set aside.