Court reverses acquittal order, convicts man for theft

A man has been sentenced to six months in jail for theft by a sessions court here which set aside order for his acquittal, saying "non-inclusion of public witnesses" in a probe does not "discredit the testimony of the complainant".
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hemani Malhotra held Ghaziabad resident Mohd Rehan guilty of the offences of theft and dishonestly receiving stolen property, while relying on the testimony of the victim.
"Non-inclusion of public witnesses in investigation, to my mind, is neither fatal nor discredits the testimony of the complainant.
"It is common knowledge that generally members of the public are reluctant to become witnesses in any matter due to fear of the investigating agency/court and undue harassment which may be caused to them," the judge said.

The court's observation came on an appeal filed by victim Avnish Kumar, a resident of Gurgaon, against the trial court order that had acquitted Rehan of the offences.
"The appeal in hand moved against the acquittal is allowed and the impugned judgement is set aside. Accordingly Rehan is convicted for commission of offences under sections 379 (theft), 411(dishonestly receiving stolen property) and (34) common intention under the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months," it said.

The court, while convicting him, also noted that since there was "no previous friendship, enmity or acquaintance" between Avnish and Rehan, "no motive could be imputed to the complainant implicating the accused. The testimony of the complainant is not only natural but also spontaneous and reliable."

According to the victim's complaint, on July 29, 2010, he was going to Chawri Bazar in a bus when Rehan along with his two associates pushed him and stole Rs 50,000 cash and his voter I-card.
Avnish raised an alarm and Rehan was apprehended while his associates managed to flee with the cash. The voter I-card of the victim was recovered from the convict's pocket, it said.
In his defence, Rehan had contended that there was no eye witness in the case, and the voter card was planted to falsely implicate him.