Court sets aside jail term to a man who stole laptop from car

A Delhi court has set aside three-year jail term of a man, who stole a laptop, credit cards and other valuables from a man's car after tricking him to get out of the vehicle to check oil leakage, saying the trial court had erred in sentencing him without cross examination of the complainant.

Additional Sessions Judge S K Gupta sent the matter back to the magisterial court directing that the complainant be summoned for cross-examination and the case decided afresh.

The cross examination of any witness is essential in order to bring out the truth during the course of cross-examination. The appellant has no way to bring his defence on record except to test the credibility of the witness during the course of cross examination. The cross examination is NIL.

 

The request of the counsel for the appellant was not considered by the Court. Trial Court should have deferred his cross examination in the ends of justice but no such procedure was adopted, the sessions judge said.

The sessions court said the complainant should have been cross examined as he was the sole eye witness to the incident which had occurred in 2012 near Govindpuri metro station in south east Delhi.

According to the complaint, Varun Dutt was driving his Hyundai Santro car on September 25, 2012 when the accused knocked on his car window and told him that oil was leaking from his car.

Varun got out of the car to check the leakage and found that the engine was intact but the oil had been thrown from outside, it said, adding when he got into his car, he noticed his laptop bag, credit cards, ATM cards and other valuables were missing.

The complainant lodged an FIR after which the accused was arrested and a charge sheet was filed. He was convicted and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment by a magisterial court in February this year.

Challenging the order, the accused contended that the trial court did not give him the opportunity to cross examine the complainant.

The sessions court, which allowed the appeal, said, The cross examination of prosecution witness 1 (complainant) is essential in order to prove the case because he is the sole eye witness to the case. The interest of justice demands that PW1 should be cross examined.

Trial Court has not given proper opportunity to appellant for the cross examination though reliance is placed on his testimony while convicting the appellant, the court said.

There is an infirmity in the judgment passed by Trial Court. The judgment is set aside and as a result sentence imposed upon the appellant is also set aside and case is remanded back, it said.