Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Where Victim Denies the Crime: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man in Snatching Case

“A presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act cannot substitute proof of identity of the accused or ownership of the stolen property” – Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the conviction of a man accused of snatching a mobile phone under Section 379-A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that neither the identity of the accused nor the ownership of the stolen property had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Manisha Batra criticised the trial court’s conviction as unsustainable, especially in light of the fact that both the complainant and the alleged victim turned hostile, and the alleged recovery was unsupported by independent or reliable evidence.

The Court held that the prosecution had failed on every essential legal front — from proving the snatching, to establishing ownership of the mobile phone, to identifying the accused as the person who committed the act.

“Both Complainant and Victim Denied the Accused’s Involvement” – Hostile Star Witnesses Render Prosecution Case Baseless

The criminal proceedings originated from FIR No. 129/2022, registered at Police Station Punhana, in which the complainant, Hakam, alleged that while he and his brother Rihan were at a vegetable market, two individuals on a motorcycle — one of whom was allegedly Arshad (the appellant) — snatched Rihan’s mobile phone.

However, during the trial, both PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-2 (the alleged victim) gave statements that completely dismantled the prosecution's case. In their cross-examinations, they categorically denied that any snatching had occurred or that Rihan even had a mobile phone on him at the time.

The Court noted:

“PW-2 stated that on the fateful day, he did not have any mobile phone with him. Even PW-1 Arshad admitted during cross-examination that his brother did not have any phone on the day of occurrence.”

Further, the bill of the allegedly stolen mobile phone, marked as Exhibit 'A', was found to be in the name of one Mahesh s/o Ganeshi, not Rihan. This completely demolished the prosecution’s claim that the snatched phone belonged to the alleged victim.

“As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, factum of snatching of any phone belonging to PW-2 itself had become doubtful but this fact had not been considered by the learned trial Court.”

“Presumption Under Section 114(a) Is No Substitute for Proof” – Police Recovery Evidence Held Unreliable and Legally Insufficient

The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimonies of police officials, Constable Javed (PW-4) and Sub-Inspector Mahender Singh (PW-7), who claimed that the appellant confessed and led to the recovery of the stolen phone and motorcycle.

But the High Court found critical gaps and inconsistencies in their statements:

• The Investigating Officer (PW-7) failed to state the time of the complaint or recovery.

• No independent or public witnesses were involved in the alleged recovery.

• The ownership of the recovered phone was never linked to the complainant or the alleged victim.

• No inquiry was conducted regarding Mahesh, in whose name the phone bill existed.

“PW-7 was not even aware about the exact time when he had received complaint... No efforts to join any public and disinterested witness at the time of recovery are shown to have been made.”

Though the trial court invoked Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows a presumption that a person in possession of stolen goods is the thief, the High Court clarified that such a presumption does not apply when the very act of theft or robbery is unproven and when the ownership of the property itself is disputed.

“No such inference/presumption could be drawn that the appellant was one who had snatched the mobile phone in question... At the most, the appellant could be held guilty under Section 411 of IPC, not under Section 379-A(2).”

“Conviction Cannot Stand in the Absence of Reliable Evidence” – Acquittal Ordered in the Interest of Justice

The trial court had sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹25,000, and an additional one year of simple imprisonment in default. This conviction, the High Court found, was rendered untenable due to:

• Star witnesses turning hostile, denying both the incident and the identity of the accused.

• Failure to prove ownership of the allegedly snatched phone.

• Weak recovery evidence, supported only by interested police witnesses, with no public corroboration.

• Total lack of motive or connecting evidence against the appellant.

Additionally, the co-accused was found to be a juvenile, and had already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, further weakening the prosecution's version.

In concluding, the Court observed:

“There was no direct incriminating evidence on record to prove that the appellant was the snatcher of the cell phone... Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order on quantum of sentence are set aside.”

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025