Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/291/1998 on 12 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH : MM : NEW DELHI
FIR No. 52/98
PS Kanjhawala
U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC
State v. Vipin
JUDGMENT :
a. Srl. No. of the case : 291/07
b. Date of Institution : 09.11.1998
c. Date of Commission of Offence : 05.06.1998
d. Name of the complainant : Maman Chand
A.E. Zone no.513, Bawana,
Delhi
e. Name of the accused and his : Vipin
parentage address S/o Sh. Azad Singh
R/o Village-Ghevra
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 : 12.08.2010
i. Final Order : Acquitted
j. Date of such order : 12.08.2010
Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.06.1998, a joint team of DVB raided the premises at Village-Ghevra, Delhi where accused Vipin was also found stealing the electricity by using 2 connected load of 50-3/6 KW for industrial purpose 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. Kanjhawala. 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 24.01.2000 to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. Prosecution has produced and examined as many as six witnesses namely Arvind Kumar as PW1, Maman Chand as PW2, HC Yogeshwar as PW3, ASI Mahender Singh as PW4, Ct. Shri Krishan as PW5 and Sudarshan Kumar as PW6.
4. A PW1 Arvind Kumar has testified that on 08.06.1998, he alongwith Maman Chand went to P.S. Kanjhawala alongwith the case property where I.O. seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He further testified that he was not the member of the 3 raiding party. He admitted that case property was produced in unsealed condition without any mark of identification. PW1 correctly identified the case property as Ex. P1, P2, P3 and P4.
4. B PW2 Maman Chand has testified that on 08.06.1998, he received a photocopy of inspection report dated 05.06.1998. On that basis he lodged the complaint to S.H.O Ex. PW2/A but he was not the member of the raiding party. He further testified that he handed over the case property to I.O. which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He further testified the provisional theft bill Ex.PW2/C was assessed and given to I.O. Further PW2 identified the photographs as Mark A1 to A23.
4. C PW3 HC Yogeshwar has testified that on complaint of DESU he recorded the present case F.I.R Ex. PW3/A.
4. D PW4 ASI Mahender Singh has testified that on 08.06.1998 he was handed over the investigation of case by duty officer so he prepared the site plan on the instance of Maman Chand Ex. PW4/A. He further testified that on 09.07.98 he arrested the accused Vipin present in the court at the instance of one of the relative of accused Gulab Singh vide memo Ex. PW4/B and recorded the statement of witnesses. He further testified that the photographs Mark A1 to A23 were also handed over to him.
In his cross examination, PW4 has testified that he was not the member of raid. Further he had not collected any documentary proof of ownership/user of premises.
44. E PW5 Ct. Shri Krishan has testified that on 09.06.1998, he alongwith HC Mahender went to Village Ghevra at the factory of Vipin Kumar where they arrested the accused from inside the factory on secret information and the personal search of accused was conducted Ex. PW4/B .
In his cross examination, PW5 has testified that he was not the member of raiding party. He further testified that no document was prepared in his presence. He further testified that no documentary proof regarding ownership of the factory was obtained in his presence.
4. F PW6 Sudarshan Kumar has testified that on 05.06.1998 a raid was conducted at Village-Ghevra and direct theft of electricity was detected. Photographs were taken which were Mark as A1 to A23. PW6 further testified that two single phase meter and one service line was removed and they raised the bill but the bill was not paid by the accused therefore a complaint was made against him. PW6 further testified that JIR Mark A was prepared. PW6 also identified the case property collectively as Ex.P1.
In his cross examination, PW6 has testified that the bill was not prepared by him and the same was also not prepared in his presence. Further the case property was not in sealed condition and the JIR was prepared at the site which is of three pages. He further testified that they were eight DVB officials. PW6 further testified that he cannot say whether accused was there at the time of raid and accused is not figured in the photographs. Further they had not 5 collected any documents regarding the ownership or the user of the premises. Further PW6 testified that they verbally inquired from the nearby person about the ownership of the said factory but they did not recorded their statements. PW6 has denied the suggestion to the effect that accused was not the user or owner of the premises.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Vipin 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 have 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 raid in premises at Village Ghevra on 05.06.1998 where direct theft of electricity from LV Mains Line by using connected load of 50-3/6 KW for industrial purpose was found. It was revealed during raid that accused Vipin 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 Vipin was the user of premises situated at Village Ghevra where raid was conducted and the direct theft of electricity was deducted. To prove that accused was the user of the 6 premises prosecution has examined six witnesses out of them PW6 is the raiding witness of premises.
9. PW6 has testified that accused Vipin was not present in the premises at the time of raid but it was told to them by the workers present there that premises was using by the accused Vipin. However, they have not asked the name of that person from whom they revealed about accused Vipin. It is clear from the testimony of PW6 that accused Vipin was not present on spot at the time of raid. Further PW6 has testified that the premises at Village Ghevra in question belongs to accused Vipin but no documentary proof regarding the ownership of that premises was placed on record. Further PW6 has admitted that they had not recorded the statement of anyone with regard to the ownership of the raided premises.
It is also very interesting that the member of Joint Raiding team i.e. PW6 has testified that the name of accused Vipin was revealed to them by the workers at the spot but the said workers have not been made witness in this case. Even the name and address of the said workers are not placed on record. In these circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vipin was the owner/user of the premises at Village Ghevra where the raid was conducted.
10. PW4/ I.O. of the case has simply testified that he arrested the accused on the instance of his relative Gulab Singh vide memo Ex. PW4/B whereas PW5 who accompanied PW4 at the time of arrest of accused has testified that accused Vipin was arrested on 7 secret information. Further during their cross examination, PW4 and PW5 both have admitted that they were not the members of the raiding party. PW4 also testified that he had not collected any document or proof regarding ownership/user of premises. This is all about evidence in connection of accused Vipin with premises at Village Ghevra where direct theft of electricity was found.
11. The depositions of prosecution witnesses not only shows the sloppy investigation but also that there was practically no cogent evidence to connect accused Vipin with the user of the electricity at the raided premises at Village Ghevra.
12. In view of above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Vipin was the user/owner of the premises situated at Village Ghevra where direct theft of electricity from DVB Mains was found during raid. Accordingly, accused Vipin 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 12.08.10 (RAVINDER SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi 8 FIR No. 52/98 PS Kanjhawala U/s 39/44 I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC 12.08.2010 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Statement of accused recorded.
At this stage. Ld. Counsel for the accused requested that he wants to advance his final arguments.
Heard. Request allowed.
Final arguments heard. Put up for order at 3.00 p.m. Ravinder Singh) MM/ND/12.08.10 Matter again taken up at 3.00 p.m. Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court accused Vipin is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 39/ I.E. Act r/w 379 IPC of 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/12.08.10 9