Friday, Apr 26, 2024 | Last Update : 12:56 AM IST
Delhi City court sets aside thief’s jail term
The appellant counsel’s request was not considered by the trial court.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has set aside three-year jail term of a man, who stole a laptop, credit cards and other valuables from a man’s car after tricking him to get out of the vehicle to check oil leakage, saying the trial court had erred in sentencing him without cross examination of the complainant.
Additional Sessions Judge S.K. Gupta sent the case 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 to bring out the truth during the course of cross-examination. The appellant has no way to bring his defence on record except to test the credibility of the witness during the course of cross examination. The cross examination here is nil.”
“The appellant counsel’s request was not considered by the trial court. The court should have deferred his cross-examination in the ends of justice, but no such procedure was adopted,” the sessions judge said.
The sessions court said the complainant should have been cross examined as he was the sole eye witness to the incident which had occurred in 2012 near Govindpuri Metro station.
As per the complaint, Varun Dutt was driving his Hyundai Santro car on September 25, 2012 when the accused knocked on his car window and told him that oil was leaking from his car.
Varun got out of the car to check the leakage and found that the engine was intact, but the oil had been thrown from outside, it said, adding when he got into his car, he noticed his laptop bag, credit cards, ATM cards and other valuables were missing. He lodged a first information report after which the accused was arrested. He was later convicted and sentenced to three-year simple imprisonment by a magisterial court in February this year.
The accused said the trial court didn’t give him the opportunity to cross examine the complainant. The sessions court said, “There is an infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court. The verdict is set aside, as a result sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside and case is remanded back.”
