A fast-track court in Noida on Saturday sentenced a Dadri man to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 12,000 for snatching a car 11 years ago. The court ordered that Rs 10,000 of the total fine amount be paid to the car owner as compensation.
Details of the Incident
The case stems from an FIR registered with the Phase-II police station by N Raja Singh on April 5, 2013. According to the complainant, while returning from his office in Delhi to his home in Noida, he stopped his Hyundai i10 car near Sector 110, close to the Noida-Greater Noida Expressway, to purchase fruits. At that moment, Pawan Kumar accosted him, pointed a gun at him, and forced him to drive a short distance before making him get out of the vehicle.
Legal Proceedings
Police initially booked the accused under sections 392 (robbery), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (causing voluntary hurt), and 307 (attempt to murder). Following an investigation, Kumar was arrested. During the trial, a prosecution witness, constable Gurmeet Singh, testified that he had intercepted the car near Bulandshahr during a routine check.
The defense counsel argued that the police failed to record the statement of the victim’s wife and did not summon the person at whose house the victim took refuge after the robbery. Additionally, they claimed that mobile phone locations of the victim and the accused were not traced, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
Court's Verdict
Additional District and Sessions Judge Satyendra Singh observed that the victim was an eyewitness to the incident and had sustained injuries, making his testimony credible. The judge stated, “If the police committed any negligence in the investigation, the accused cannot be given the benefit of that negligence.” Citing a Supreme Court judgment in A Pradeepan and others v State of Kerala (2007), the court held that an acquittal cannot be granted solely due to an error in the investigation.
The judge noted that the incident was proven by the victim's testimony, corroborated by witnesses, medical reports, and the recovery of the vehicle. The court found the accused guilty of all charges except Section 307 (attempt to murder), as the injury caused to the victim was not intended to kill him.
Conclusion
The sentencing serves as a reminder that justice can be delivered even years after a crime, provided there is credible evidence and testimony. The court's emphasis on the victim's account underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.
