Court gives robber benefit of doubt

  • | Monday | 30th April, 2018

The court observed that the trial court had erred in sentencing him without cross-examining the complainant.The court 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 complainant) is essential to prove the case because he is the sole eyewitness,” the court said “The cross examination of any witness is essential in order to bring out the truth,” the court observed. NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has set aside three-year jail term to a robber who stole a laptop , credit cards and other valuables from a victim in 2012. When he got back inside the car, he found his laptop bag, credit cards, ATM cards and other valuables missing, the complainant alleged.

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has set aside three-year jail term to a robber who stole a laptop , credit cards and other valuables from a victim in 2012. The court observed that the trial court had erred in sentencing him without cross-examining the complainant.The court 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,” the court observed. The appellant had no other way to defend himself except to test the credibility of the witness during the course of cross examination, the court added.The complainant claimed that he was driving his car on September 25, 2012 when the accused knocked on the window and told him about the oil leakage in his car. As soon as he got off the car to check the leakage, he found that the engine was intact and the oil had been thrown from outside. When he got back inside the car, he found his laptop bag, credit cards, ATM cards and other valuables missing, the complainant alleged. He then lodged an FIR following which the accused was arrested, chargesheeted and in February 2018 sentenced to three years simple imprisonment.The accused challenged the order arguing the trial court did not give him the opportunity to cross examine the complainant. “The cross examination of complainant) is essential to prove the case because he is the sole eyewitness,” the court said

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Delhi Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles