Delhi Court Discharges Accused, Questions Police’s Misuse of Power

Delhi Court Discharges Accused, Questions Police's Misuse of Power

VoM News Desk | October 21, 2023 | 05:51 PM IST | Breaking News, Courts & Law | Follow on Google News

Delhi Court Discharges Accused, Questions Police’s Misuse of Power

Delhi Court Discharges Accused, Questions Police’s Misuse of Power

In a recent judgment, the Tis Hazari court in Delhi discharged an accused from charges of robbery (Section 392 IPC) and causing hurt during robbery (Section 394 IPC). The court raised concerns over the alleged misuse of power by the Delhi police and sought an explanation from the Investigating Officer (IO).

Deliberate Attempt to Attract Graver Offenses

Metropolitan Magistrate Neha Mittal discharged the accused, Pankaj Kumar, while highlighting what appears to be a misuse of power by the police. The court noted that a deliberate attempt had been made to attract graver offenses of robbery. The magistrate issued a notice to the IO and the SHO to provide an explanation regarding the gaps in the investigation.

Distinguishing Robbery from Theft

The court emphasized that to establish an offense under Sections 392/394 IPC, it must be shown that the accused committed robbery, as defined under Section 390 IPC. Notably, robbery entails either theft or extortion. In this case, the allegations were related to the theft of a mobile phone.

The court clarified that theft would only amount to robbery if harm was caused to any person for the purpose of theft. It stated that the offense of robbery would not be established unless such harm was inflicted for the same purpose.

Crucial Findings and Order

The court pointed out that, in the present case, the complaint lacked evidence to suggest that harm was caused to the complainant to facilitate the theft of the mobile phone. The statement of an alleged eyewitness also did not confirm that the harm was inflicted to aid the theft.

Moreover, the mobile phone’s bill was found in the name of someone other than the complainant, and neither the complainant nor that person’s statement was on record. Consequently, the accused was discharged under sections 392/394/34 IPC, while a prima facie case was made against the accused for an offense punishable under sections 323/341/34 IPC.

This decision follows arguments presented by advocate Deepak Sharma, representing the accused, asserting the false implication of the accused in the case. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that there was sufficient evidence to charge the accused, maintaining that the accused and his associates had visited the complainant’s shop, subsequently leading to the alleged robbery.

VoM News Desk

VoM News is an online web portal in jammu Kashmir offers regional, National & global news.