A fast-track court on Tuesday awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) to a Ropar man who was found guilty of breaking into a mobile shop in Kurali and stealing ₹ 13,000 in January 2022.
When he returned, he saw the accused and his aide Balwinder Kaur escaping on a two-wheeler. He immediately raised the alarm following which passersby helped him catch the duo. The complaint regarding the stolen two-wheeler had been registered just two days prior to the theft at the mobile shop. The defence argued that police had falsely implicated Amandeep and planted the recovery, besides pointing to the absence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage, an identification parade and independent witnesses.
Additional sessions judge Vikrant Kumar also awarded the convict, Amandeep Kumar alias Kalu of Dhanori village in Ropar, fines of ₹ 5,000 and ₹ 1,000 under Sections 457 (house-trespass or breaking in) and 380 (theft in a building) of the India Penal Code. The incident had taken place around 8pm on January 26, 2022, when the owner of Ganapati Telecom mobile shop, Ashish Kumar, had briefly stepped away. Once the police arrived, ₹ 13,000, allegedly stolen from the shop, was recovered from the duo’s possession. It was later found that the Activa (PB-12W-6009) they were riding was also stolen from another Ropar resident. A case was registered under Sections 457 (house trespass), 379/380 (theft), and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code in an FIR dated January 26, 2022, at Kurali city police station. Section 413, relating to habitual dealing in stolen property, was added later, on March 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the shop owner, an eyewitness, the investigating officer and the owner of the stolen scooty.
The court also declined his plea for leniency despite his claim that he was poor, worked as a labourer and was the sole breadwinner for his family. It held that the gravity of the offence did not warrant leniency. Amandeep’s custody period during the investigation and trial will be set off against his sentence.
His female aide, who later stopped appearing before the court, has been declared a proclaimed offender.
The court rejected these arguments, holding that the complainant and eyewitness had consistently supported the prosecution case and that Amandeep was apprehended at the spot with the stolen cash. The court acquitted Amandeep of Section 413, saying the prosecution failed to prove that he had been repeatedly convicted under Section 411, as required to establish habitual dealing in stolen property. Because the accused had been caught while committing the offence, it also held that an identification parade was unnecessary.
