Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/479/1999 on 21 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH : MM : NEW DELHI
FIR No. 260/99
PS Sultanpuri
U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC
State v. Raju
JUDGMENT :
a. Srl. No. of the case : 479/2
b. Date of Institution : 25.04.2000
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 16.03.1999
d. Name of the complainant : B.S. Saini,
A.E. Zone no. 519,
Mangol Puri, Delhi
e. Name of the accused and his : Raju
parentage address S/o Sh. Debi
R/o D-4/221, Sector-20,
Rohini Extn., Delhi
f. Offence complained of : U/s 39/44I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC
g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h. Order reserved : 19.08.2010
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 21.08.2010
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.03.1999, a joint team of DVB raided the premises at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where accused 2 Raju was found stealing the electricity directly from the DVB LV Mains with the help of illegal wires. A joint inspection report was prepared. Raided premises was photographed and thereafter a complaint was made to P.S. Sultanpuri. The investigation of case was conducted and during the investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented before the court for trial.
2. Accused was summoned by the court to face trial, so copy of challan as required U/s 207 Cr. PC was supplied to him, thereafter case was fixed for consideration of charge.
3. After hearing argument on charge, prima facie case made out against the accused U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC. Accordingly, charge framed against the accused vide order dated 30.08.2001 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as seven witnesses namely B.S. Saini as PW1, Gulshan Kumar as PW2, Ramesh Kumar as PW3, ASI Jeet Singh as PW4, Navneet Kumar as PW5, Surender Singh as PW6 and SI Attar Singh as PW7.
4. A PW1 B.S. Saini has testified that on 16.03.1999, he alongwith O.P. Sharma, Surinder Singh, Navneet Kumar, police 3 officials and photographer had conducted a raid at the premises of accused at Khasra no. 106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no. 4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi who was found stealing the electricity directly from DVB LV Mains. After taking the photographs Mark A1 to A12, illegal wires were removed and handed over to the police vide memo Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter JIR Ex. PW1/B was prepared and a complaint Ex.PW1/C was lodged by him against accused Raju. He further testified that he has also issued the permission Ex.PW1/D u/s 50 I.E. Act.
During his cross examination, PW1 has testified that accused was not present during raid at the premises in question. He further testified that the labours present at the spot and the persons present at the spot disclosed the name of user of premises as Raju. He further testified that he had not tried to know the parentage of Raju. PW1 denied the suggestion to the effect that the name of Raju gathered from site of user and the person facing trial is of two different person.
4. B PW2 Gulshan Kumar's examination-in-chief was not completed due to want of case property hence his testimony cannot be read for the disposal of this case.
4. C PW3 Ramesh Kumar has testified that he knows accused Raju present in the court and he had seen accused Raju in Barafwali Gali, in Village Pooth Kalan. PW3 after seeing the photographs 4 testified that these photographs are not of premises in question.
PW3 was cross examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his earlier statement.
PW3 has testified that he had not given the plot in Barafwali Gali to accused Raju on rent for Rs. 4000/- per month for irunning factory of Gulla and is responsible for any theft of electricity. PW3 denied the suggestion of Ld. APP to the effect that accused was arrested by police on his identification.
4. D PW4 ASI Jeet Singh has testified that on 17.03.1999 on the basis of complaint he recorded F.I.R. no.260/99. Copy of same is Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to SI Attar Singh.
4. E PW5 Navneet Kumar has testified that on 16.03.1999, he alongwith Gulshan Kumar, Surender Singh, Om Prakash Sharma, photographer, B.S. Saini, police official and SDM went to the Pooth Kalan area where they conducted the raid at the premises of one Raju which was situated in Baraf Wali Gali where they found committing the direct theft of electricity through illegal wires for running his gulla factory. Thereafter illegal wires were removed and necessary photographs Mark A1 to A-19 were taken. JIR Ex.PW1/B was prepared on the spot. PW5 also correctly identified the case property Ex.P1.
In his cross examination, PW5 has testified that the name of 5 accused was revealed at the spot from the workers present there but he could not tell the name of those workers. He further testified that they have not collected any documentary proof from the persons available at the spot to connect the accused with the premises in question. He further testified that they could not get any name and style of the business from the spot.
4. F PW6 Surender Singh testified that on 16.03.1999, he alongwith Gulshan Kumar, Om Prakash, SDM, B.S. Saini, police and photographer raided the area of Pooth kalan where the premises of one Raju was raided which was situated in Barafwali Gali where they found committing the direct theft of electricity by accused for running his gulla factory. Thereafter illegal wires were removed and photographs were taken as Mark A1-A19. Thereafter JIR was prepared. PW6 also identified the case property correctly as Ex.P1.
In his cross-examination, PW6 testified that accused was not present at the spot. He further testified that they had not collected any documentary proof to connect the accused with the premises in question.
4. G PW7 SI Attar Singh has testified that on the basis of complaint Ex. PW1/C the present case F.I.R. was registered on 17.03.1999 and on 31.03.1999, the investigation was assigned to him so he prepared the site plan at the instance of B.S. Saini. Thereafter he seized the illegal wires vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. 6 Photographs Mark A1 to A-19 were also handed over to him. PW7 further testified that one Ramesh was the owner of raided premises . On 01.04.1999, on the basis of DD no.22A Ex.PW7/A he alongwith Ct. Chander Bhan and Ramesh went to B-4/221, Sector-20, Rohini from where accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/C. PW7 also identified the case property as Ex. P1.
In his cross examination, PW7 has testified that no documentary proof was collected during investigation to connect the accused with premises in question. He further testified that he prepared the site plan at the instance of B.S. Saini. PW7 admitted that he had not obtained the signature of Ramesh on arrest memo Ex. PW7/B.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Raju was recorded u/s. 313 r/w. 281 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegation of prosecution and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record and the relevant provisions of the law.
7. It is the case of prosecution that DVB official conducted the 7 raid in premises at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where direct theft of electricity from LV Mains Line was found. It was revealed during raid that accused Raju was the user of the premises so case F.I.R. was registered against him.
8. To prove its case the prosecution has to establish one of the ingredients that accused Raju was the user of premises situated at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where raid was conducted and the direct theft of electricity was deducted. To prove that accused was the user of the premises prosecution has examined seven witnesses out of them PW1, PW5 and PW6 are the raiding witness of premises.
9. PW1, PW5 and PW6 have testified that accused Raju was not present in the premises at the time of raid but it was told to them by the workers/labourers present there that premises was using by the accused Raju. However, they have not asked the name of that person from whom they revealed about accused Raju. It is clear from the testimony of PW1,PW5 and PW6 that they had not recorded the statement of any person present at the time of raid who disclosed to them that accused Raju was the user of the premises. Further they had not collected any documentary proof regarding the ownership/user of that premises.
It is also very interesting that the member of Joint Raiding 8 team i.e. PW1, PW5 and PW6 have testified that the name of accused Raju was revealed to them by the workers/labourers at the spot but the said workers/labourers have not been made witness in this case. Even the name and address of the said workers/labourers are not placed on record. In these circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Raju was the owner/user of the premises at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where the raid was conducted.
10. PW7/ I.O. of the case has testified that he arrested the accused on the instance of PW3/Ramesh the owner of the raided premises vide memo Ex. PW7/B and conducted his personal search Ex. PW7/C whereas PW3 who accompanied PW7 at the time of arrest of accused has testified that accused Raju was not arrested in his presence on his identification. The arrest memo of accused Ex. PW7/B does not bear the signature of PW3 meaning thereby that accused was not arrested on the instance of PW3. Further PW3 failed to identify the photographs of the raided premises. PW7 also testified that he had not collected any document or proof regarding ownership/user of premises where raid was conducted. This is all about evidence in connection of accused Raju with premises at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where direct theft of electricity was found.
911. The depositions of prosecution witnesses not only shows the sloppy investigation but also that there was practically no cogent evidence to connect accused Raju with the user of the electricity at the raided premises at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi.
12. In view of above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Raju was the user/owner of the premises situated at Khasra no.106/1, Baraf Wali Gali, Transformer no.4, Pooth Kalan, New Delhi where direct theft of electricity from DVB Mains was found during raid. Accordingly, accused Raju is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 39 I.E. Act r/w. 379 IPC for which he stands charged.
Announced in the Open Court
On 21.08.10 (RAVINDER SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
New Delhi
10
FIR No. 260/99
PS Sultanpuri
U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC
19.08.2010
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Put up for order on 21.08.2010
Ravinder Singh)
MM/ND/19.08.10
11
FIR No. 260/99
PS Sultanpuri
U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC
21.08.2010
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court accused Raju is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 39/ I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC for which he stands charged.
Bail bond of accused is cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Document if any be returned to the concerned party after cancellation of endorsement.
File be consigned to Record Room for due compliance.
(Ravinder Singh) MM/ND/21.08.10