1 week Ago
Ludhiana: A local court here Saturday sentenced two men to five years of rigorous imprisonment each for snatching a woman's purse, which contained her jewellery and some cash, five years ago. Judge Rajneesh also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on the convicts. Failure to pay the fine will lead to one more month of rigorous imprisonment for both.
The incident took place on Aug 11, 2020. The two — Lovedeep Singh of Jalandhar bypass (currently Jhabewal) and Raman Kumar from Salem Tabri, were caught and booked the next day. As per the prosecution, complainant Romy Verma told police that on Aug 11 she, along with her sister, went to her in-laws' place in Jamalpur on a scooty.
She was carrying jewellery in her purse to wear during her brother's marriage. Both sisters went to Chaura Bazar for shopping. After shopping, they were going towards their parents' house in Bhattian when the two came from behind on a motorcycle around 6pm just as they were crossing a bridge.
They kicked their Activa and she fell down. They snatched her purse and fled towards Hussainpura. She was also carrying Rs 12,000 in cash in her purse.
Following the incident, she lodged a complaint. Police registered a case and arrested the two. In their confessional statement, they said they had spent the stolen money and sold off the jewellery to Gora of Bhamian village for Rs 30,000, which they had divided among themselves.
After investigation, police presented a charge-sheet against the accused in the court. During the trial of the case, the accused pleaded false implication. The defence counsel contended that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case by planting false recovery.
The court observed that the accused have not led any evidence to prove their alleged false implication either at the hands of the complainant party or anyone else. "Neither they themselves appeared in the witness box nor examined any witness to prove their innocence. The defence version cannot be treated as a gospel truth in the absence of any cogent or convincing evidence.
No animus of the complainant with them has either been alleged or proved on record," the court held. "Had any such thing happened, they would have filed a complaint before the higher authorities," it added. The court observed that at the same time, the sequence of events and their timeline also overrule the possibility of false implication of the accused.
.
