Court acquits domestic help booked for theft after 7 years

As the employer’s in-laws were residing at the home, the two domestic workers continued to visit the home for work. When the employer returned, it was noticed that valuable items from their home were missing. These included ornaments worth Rs 25,000, cash of Rs 21,000, sunglasses worth Rs 4,000, designer clothes set worth Rs 30,000 and leather jackets worth Rs 16,000. An FIR was filed at Marine Drive police station on June 24, 2016. The FIR said that the complainant suspected the two domestic workers.

Lawyer Sunil Pandey representing Pinto had submitted that she was targeted over non-payment of her salary and the case was filed to cause harassment to her. He had submitted that there were no independent witnesses. He had also submitted that the articles alleged to have been stolen were not recovered from the accused and brought to court, claiming that the theft never took place.

The court considered these submissions. It said that while the initial FIR mentioned that the two domestic workers employed at the house were suspected to have committed the theft, eventually only Pinto was booked.

“The prosecution failed to examine any other independent witness of the incident. When the informant (complainant) is suspecting both maids, only one accused has been made accused in the case. The prosecution has not examined the other maid being an independent witness. The parents-in-law of the informant were present during the theft period in the house, but they were also not examined,” the court said. It also said that the CCTV footage of the building claimed to have been given to the police was also not brought on record.