Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, while disposing of the criminal appeal plea of convict Naushad against his conviction and sentence, said the trial court order does not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be faulted with.
"The trend of robbery and snatching of mobile phone is on the rise. Besides that creating a fear factor for a victim of the crime is also an alarming situation," the ASJ said, adding the "court is duty bound to take sufficient measure to take care of such a menace."
The court noted that under provisions of Evidence Act, it can be safely presumed that if accused did not rob the mobile phone himself, he at least knew that it was a stolen mobile phone, at the time of his apprehension.
Naushad was charge sheeted for the offence under sections 392 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property) of IPC but he was convicted only for receiving stolen property as the stolen cell phone was found in his possession.
It said, that as soon as the cell phone was snatched from Arora, he raised an alarm and two police constables standing at the gate of the park nabbed Naushad with the help of some local people.
