Chandigarh, July 26 -- The court of additional sessions judge, Rajnish Garg, has acquitted three individuals booked by UT Police in a mobile snatching case, citing significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The case dates back to April, 2023, when complainant Kamalpreet Kaur, a resident of Phase-1, Mohali reported that her mobile was snatched on the night of April 7-8, 2023, in Sector-37, Chandigarh. She stated that three boys on a Punjab-registered Activa snatched her black VIVO mobile. Sector-39 police had booked Abhishek from Jujhar Nagar, Mohali, and Deepak and Vishal from Daddu Majra Colony, Sector-38. An FIR under IPC Sections 379-A, 34, and 411 was registered on April 10, 2023. SI Jagtar Singh was the investigating officer (IO). The accused were allegedly arrested during a police naka, with the snatched mobile phone being recovered. The court questioned the blue colour of the recovered mobile phone, as the complainant had stated in her complaint that her snatched VIVO mobile was of black colour. The prosecution presented five witnesses, while the accused pleaded innocence, claiming false implication and no recovery from them. The court highlighted an unexplained three-day delay in FIR registration. The incident occurred on April 7, but the complaint was officially moved on April 10. The complainant testified her statement was recorded on the spot on April 7, raising concerns about the suppression of the occurrence's origin. The court noted that the accused were apprehended and recovery was made within an hour of FIR registration, as per the IO. This suggested the possibility that the accused might have already been in police custody before the case was officially registered, implying the current case could have been "planted".The prosecution also failed to prove the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the complainant initially claimed she could identify the accused and provided the Activa scooter number, she couldn't recall it in the court. The complainant's testimony on apprehension was inconsistent; she initially claimed her presence during arrest but later stated that the police showed her the accused at the station on an unknown date. Despite claims, the seizure memo listed the mobile as recovered from Vishal, while the IO and complainant testified it was from Deepak, a significant contradiction. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove both the recovery of the stolen mobile phone and the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt....