MUMBAI: A sessions court this week rejected the bail plea of a city-based man who in a bid to steal the mobile phone of a woman in a local train ended up in a scuffle with her in which she died.
Rejecting the bail plea of accused Ramzan Khan, the sessions court said, “…from layman view, it can be gathered and ascertained that the scuffle at the door in a slightly running train may cause death and the same was well within the knowledge of the accused and inspite of this he proceeded to commit such crime. Therefore, I do not find any substantial reason from which the apparent innocence of the accused could be presumed.”
The accused has been booked under section 394 of the IPC — Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery — which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
On April 11, 49-year-old Priyanka Khodke died after she fell off the train at Mahim when she was on her way home from work.
It was the prosecution’s case that about 6.38pm, a witness travelling in the ladies compartment saw the accused jumping into the train.
The witness told the police that the accused tried to snatch the mobile phone from the deceased.
She further infomed that there was a scuffle between the woman and the accused. As the scuffle continued, Khan and Khodke moved from the seating area towards the exit.
The witness added that the victim then fell and suffered severe head injuries. The accused was allegedly caught by the crowd and handed over to the police.
The prosecution had opposed the bail plea on the grounds that the accused was a habitual offender.
It also submitted that the CCTV footage showed the accused at the spot.
The accused claimed that he was falsely implicated and that he had nothing to do with the offence.
It was further stated that, the accused is resident of Mahim and that at the relevant time of the incident, his hand was fractured.
“Therefore, there is no possibility of the accused to seize such mobile phone from the victim and he was arrested on mere suspicion,” the defence advocate argued.
The court, however, said that it was “palpably clear” that a fracture to the hand cannot be a embargo on an intention to snatch the mobile phone of the victim.
