A man accused of handling stolen car parts was cleared of all charges after a court ruled that a solitary palm print on the car was not unequivocal proof.

Marjohn Desira, 23, was accused of stealing parts of a BMW which had been reported stolen in October 2013 from Fgura, where it had been parked opposite its owner’s home.

Two months later, the car had turned up in Żejtun, abandoned and missing its bonnet, front bumper, number plates, mirrors, battery and other personal items which had been left inside it by its owner.

Investigators found Mr Desira’s palm print on the car’s metal work, between its bonnet and right front wheel.

He was arrested and confessed under interrogation to having taken parts from the stolen car and transferred them to another BMW registered under his brother’s name.

Three weeks later, that vehicle was sold for €600 to an old car enthusiast from Tarxien, who confirmed in court that he had bought the car from a buyer who went by the surname ‘Desira.’

However, he could not remember the seller’s name or nickname and was unable to identify the accused or his brother in court.

Two third parties had confessed to stealing the car and declared that Mr Desira had nothing to do with the theft.

Moreover, Mr Desira had spoken to police without the help of a lawyer, meaning his statement could not be used as evidence against him.

The court, presided over by magistrate Aaron Bugeja, observed that the solitary palm print, uncorroborated by the accused’s statement, did not amount to unequivocal evidence linking him to the theft of the car parts.

The print was “circumstantial and not direct” evidence which alone could not prove the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt, the court observed, especially since the BMW had been abandoned in a place accessible to the public.

Moreover, the accused could have merely touched the car but not dismantled its parts.

The court cleared the man of all accusations.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia were defence counsel.