Mobile Snatching Case: Supreme Court Acquits Accused Due to Lack of Evidence

The Supreme Court of India recently acquitted an accused in a mobile snatching case, highlighting the importance of proper identification and strong evidence in criminal trials. The case, Suraj Pal vs. The State of Haryana, revolved around a conviction under Section 379-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was ultimately overturned due to reasonable doubt.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on March 15, 2016, when complainant Vikas Sharma was heading home from work at 7:00 PM in Gurugram, Haryana. He reported that two individuals on a motorcycle snatched his Nexus mobile phone. The police registered FIR No. 136 of 2016 at Police Station Manesar based on his complaint.

Later, the appellant Suraj Pal and a co-accused, Javed, were arrested in Rajasthan. On September 20, 2016, they were taken into custody in connection with the case. The trial court convicted Suraj Pal under Section 379-A IPC and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, the minimum sentence under Haryana’s state amendment.

Key Arguments by the Petitioner (Suraj Pal)

• There was no Test Identification Parade (TIP) to confirm his involvement.
• The complainant identified him for the first time in court, six months after the incident.
• When the phone was snatched, the victim had only a few seconds to see the snatchers.
• The mobile phone was recovered based only on Javed’s disclosure statement, not from Suraj Pal.
• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Haryana)

• The complainant clearly identified the accused in court.
• The mobile phone was recovered based on the co-accused’s disclosure.
• Even if no TIP was held, the complainant had sufficient recollection of the snatcher.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, scrutinized the evidence and found multiple inconsistencies. The Court noted:

“Though the custody of the accused was secured in connection with this case on 20th September, 2016, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held to identify the said accused and for the first time, Vikas Sharma (PW-1) identified the appellant-accused in the court.”

The Court further observed:

“When the mobile phone was allegedly snatched from Vikas Sharma (PW-1), he would have seen the accused only for a few seconds. It is doubtful whether he would have been in a position to identify the appellant-accused.”

Additionally, since the recovery of the mobile phone was solely based on the co-accused Javed’s statement, the prosecution’s case became weak.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating:

“In our considered view, the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Section 379-A IPC and is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.”

Legal and Social Implications

• This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must be based on strong, indisputable evidence.
• It highlights the importance of conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to ensure fair identification of accused individuals.
• It sets a precedent that mere recovery based on co-accused statements is not sufficient proof of guilt.

This case serves as a reminder that due process must be strictly followed to prevent wrongful convictions.

Petitioner Name: Suraj Pal.
Respondent Name: The State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Gurugram, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 25-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Suraj Pal vs The State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-01-2019.pdf