Lahore court denies theft conviction over phone missing from repair counter

The Lahore criminal trial court denied the State's request to convict Bilal Rafiq of theft, finding that the evidence did not prove he took a customer's phone from a repair counter.

The prosecution said the phone disappeared after Bilal reached toward the area where it had been left. The court accepted that the camera clip showed him reaching toward the counter, but said it did not establish what his hand did or whether the phone was there at that moment.

Witness 1's admitted testimony described a short clip in which the counter edge obscured Bilal's hand and the phone. The court said the obstruction mattered because it prevented a clear view of the alleged taking. The exhibit descriptions treated the footage as consistent with either reaching for a charger or taking something.

The State's account of the phone being left on the counter and later found missing made its theory possible, the court said, but its submissions were not additional proof of a taking. The record contained no testimony from the customer, no clear recording of the phone and no other evidence showing Bilal removing or possessing it.

The judge also rejected the inference that Bilal was the last person with access to the phone. Being near the counter, followed by the reported discovery that the phone was missing, created suspicion but did not reliably connect him to the act.

The defense did not have to identify another person who took the phone. It had initially mentioned another customer approaching the counter, but later acknowledged that the claim lacked independent support; the court gave it no evidentiary weight.

The State argued that the sequence should be considered as a whole: the customer placed her phone near the counter while discussing repairs, Bilal moved toward that area, and she later found it gone. It described him as the last person near the phone and sought a theft conviction.

Bilal's defense argued that the clip showed a reach, not a taking, and that the customer had not seen him take the phone. It said the evidence did not establish who took it and asked the court to deny the conviction.

The accusation arose from a visit to a repair counter, where the State said the customer left her phone while asking about a repair. The parties said there was no further obtainable evidence, and the court decided the case on the record presented.

The ruling does not establish who took the phone or find that Bilal did not take it. It decides that the State did not prove he did so on the available evidence. No monetary relief was claimed or ordered.