Nagpur: In a case that highlights the slow pace of justice, a local court has acquitted two men accused in a 1993 theft due to insufficient evidence and absence of witnesses—even after 32 years since the incident occurred. Despite a chargesheet being filed promptly after the crime, the trial remained dormant for over three decades.
Theft Case Dormant for 32 Years, Accused Remained Absconding
The incident occurred on August 27, 1993, at Chaurasia Wine Shop in Queta Colony, under the jurisdiction of Lakadganj Police Station. According to the FIR, thieves entered the shop by breaking a ventilator grill and stole goods. The owner filed a complaint against “unknown persons.”
Gold Rate
06 June 2025
Within weeks, police arrested two suspects: Yusuf alias Masleb Iqbal Shaikh of Thane Bunder, Mumbai, and Bhola alias Aminullah Sunai Washis, a native of Jessore tehsil, Bangladesh. The investigation was completed in two months, and a chargesheet was filed on November 4, 1993.
However, after securing bail, the accused went absconding and never appeared before the court again. Despite issuing both bailable and non-bailable warrants followed by a proclamation order, the court received no response from the accused. Consequently, the trial proceeded in their absence.
Prosecution Fails to Prove Charges
During the trial, the prosecution failed to produce a single eyewitness or witness statement. Even the complainant failed to appear before the court. The only testimony recorded was from Police Officer Pankaj Dahapute, who had served summons to the witnesses. However, his statement lacked substantive evidence to link the accused to the crime.
Due to the lack of material evidence and witness accounts, the court ruled that there was no need to record the accused’s statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court: No Evidence to Prove Guilt
In its verdict, the court emphasized that the responsibility to prove the charges rested with the prosecution, which it failed to meet. The original complaint was against unknown persons, and no direct eyewitness account was ever presented to support the claim that the two accused were involved in the theft.
The court concluded that in the absence of concrete evidence, it could not be proven that the accused committed the theft at the wine shop. Therefore, both accused were acquitted and declared not guilty.
