[ad_1]
A 39-year-old woman working as a domestic servant who was arrested in 2016 for stealing trinkets, sunglasses and clothes worth Rs 96,000 from the Marine Drive home was acquitted of all charges by the Magistrates Court in a recent order.
The court said the FIR was filed against Juliana Pinto approximately 22 days after the theft came to light.
She said that this and other reasons raise doubts about the credibility of the case.
In her defense, the woman said she was falsely implicated in the non-payment of her salary by her employer.
According to an FIR filed at the Marine Drive Police Station, Pinto and another woman were hired by the complaining employer for domestic work. The business owner, her husband and their son traveled to Australia between 5 May and 2 June 2016.
Since the employer’s in-laws resided at the home, the two workers continued to visit the home for work. When the business owner returned, it was noted that valuables were missing from their home. These included trinkets worth 25,000 rupees, cash 21,000 rupees, sunglasses worth 4,000 rupees, designer clothing worth 30,000 rupees and leather jackets worth 16,000 rupees. An FIR was filed at the Marine Drive Police Station on June 24, 2016. The FIR said the complainant suspected two domestic workers.
Lawyer Sunil Pandey who is representing Pinto said she was targeted for non-payment of her salary and the case was filed to cause harassment. He said there were no independent witnesses. He also stated that the articles allegedly stolen were not recovered from the accused and presented to the court, claiming that the theft never occurred.
The court considered these requests. She said that while the initial FIR stated that the two domestic maids employed in the house were suspected of having committed the theft, only Pinto was ultimately impounded.
The prosecution did not interview any other independent witness to the incident. When the informant (the complainant) suspected both of the maids, only one accused was charged in the case. The prosecution did not question the other maid as she was an independent witness. The court said that the informant’s wife’s parents were present during the period of theft in the house, but they were not questioned. It also said that the surveillance footage of the building allegedly handed over to the police was also not recorded.
[ad_2]
