Delhi District Court
State vs . Dalbir Singh on 19 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MM06(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Manisha Tripathy
State Vs. Dalbir Singh
FIR No. 185/98
P.S. :Sultanpuri
Date of institution of case: 28.03.2000
Date of reserving the judgment:19.08.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment:19.08.2013
J U D G M E N T
1.Serial No. of the Case: 724/07
2.Date of the Commission of offence: 09.03.1998
3.Date of Institution of the case: 28.03.2000
4.Name of the complainant: J S Dadwal, AE Zone.
5.Name of the accused, Dalbir Singh,
Parentage & Address: S/o Sh Daya Nand,
R/o Nithari Village, Delhi.
6.Offence complained or proved: U/s. 39/44 I.E.Act r/w s. 379 IPC
7.Plea of accused: "Not guilty"
8.Final order: Acquitted
9.Date of final order: 19.08.2013
FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 1/7
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.1998, a joint raid was conducted by a team of DVB officials at Nithari Village, Sultanpuri, within the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri, where accused was found stealing the electricity directly from DVB LV Mains. In this regard a complaint was lodged and an FIR bearing number 185/98 under section 379 IPC r/w section 39/44 of I.E. Act was registered at Police Station Sultanpuri. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed in the court.
2. The copies of chargesheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of S.207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of the chargesheet and annexed documents, prima facie case was made out, charge for the offence punishable under section 39/44 of I.E. Act r/w section 379 IPC was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 11.03.2010 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
5. PW1 ASI Kulbir Singh is the duty officer. He proved the registration of FIR vide Ex PW1/A.
6. PW2 HC Joginder Singh is a raiding party member who had joined raid with the DVB officials as security staff. He deposed that case property FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 2/7 i.e. electric wires was seized and seizure memo was prepared by police in his presence.
7. PW3 SI Krishan Chand is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 11.03.1998, investigation was marked to him after which he received FIR Ex PW1/A and complaint Ex PW3/A and he met the complainant Sh J S Dadwal, AE and procured documents and also prepared site plan Ex PW3/B. He further deposed that he seized the case property i.e. electric wire vide Ex PW3/C and received photographs from complainant. He further deposed that on 24.07.1998, he arrested the accused. He further deposed that he received sanction U/s 50 I E Act from concerned authority. He identified the photographs as Ex PA (colly). He also identified the accused as well as the case property.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he was not member of raiding team. He also admitted that the site where the accused has alleged to have committed theft of electricity is a vacant land vested with Gram Sabha and accused has no concerned with the raided place. He also admitted that he could not collect any documentary evidence to connect the accused as user or as owner of the raided premises. He also admitted that there was no electric pole around 200 Sq meter area to the raided premises as on 11.03.1998. He further admitted that the photographs Ex PA (colly) do not depict the premises mentioned in the site plan. He also admitted that no involvement of accused Dalbir Singh was found during the investigation. He also admitted that accused has no FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 3/7 concern with the articles mentioned in seizure memo Ex PW3/C.
8. PW4 Kishore Kumar is the photographer. He deposed that on 09.03.1998, he had joined DVB raiding team and clicked photographs of the raided premises and developing the photographs along with negatives Ex PA(colly) he had handed over the same to the complainant J S Dadwal.
In his cross examination, he admitted that the photographs Ex PA(colly) do not pertain to raided premises as shown in site plan Ex PW3/B.
9. PW SI Jeet Singh is another member of raiding team who had joined DVB officials at the time of raid on 09.03.1998.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 05.06.2013. In his statement, the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He did not not wish to lead defence evidence.
11. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for state as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. In a criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, to bring home the charges, the prosecution was required to adduce evidence against the accused to show that at the time when the raid was conducted, the accused was the consumer receiving electricity from the complainant company and when the raid was conducted, he was found FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 4/7 abstracting, consuming or using the electricity dishonestly. The existence of any artificial means of such abstraction shall be deemed to be a prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction.
13. In the instant case, no evidence, in the first place, has been adduced by the prosecution to show that it was the accused who was the user of the electricity at the time of raid. The accused must be shown to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act to prove his guilt. No documentary proof whatever has been placed on record to connect the accused with the raided premises. In fact, IO in his deposition admitted that accused has no concern with the raided premises and the premises raided as per site plan Ex PW3/B was a vacant land vested with Gram Sabha. None of the witnesses have deposed that accused was using the said premises at the time of raid. Witnesses have failed to testify as to role of the accused at the raiding premises and how raiding party came to the conclusion that accused was responsible for theft of the electricity at the raided premises. In the absence of any proof, it cannot be said that the premises where theft of electricity is stated to have been committed, in any manner, belonged to the accused. Further, IO in his deposition admitted that there was no electric pole around 200 Sq meter area of the portion mark A, which is alleged to be raided premises in site plan Ex PW3/B. If there was no electrification and there was no electric pole around 200 Sq meter area of the raided premises, it could not have been possible to abstract electricity in the manner alleged by the FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 5/7 prosecution.
14. Thus, it is needless to say that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was the accused who was the consumer at the time of the raid and was abstracting the electricity by applying some artificial means.
15. Further, the Joint Inspection Report which is the foundation of present case, has not been proved as per law. The original JIR has not been produced. No explanation has been offered as to why original JIR is not produced. The entitlement to prove the JIR by way of secondary evidence was neither raised nor proved. Under the circumstances, the photocopied document purporting to be the copy of JIR, is not to be read in evidence.
16. Further, another, lacunae in the prosecution case regarding non production of case property. The raiding party members are stated to have removed the case property i.e. electric wires through which electricity allegedly being abstracted, and same is stated to have been seized by the IO vide Ex PW3/C. However, case property was not produced before the court. In absence of case property, its removal from the alleged spot and seizure is not proved.
17. Even the photographs Ex PA(colly) which are stated to have been taken at the raided premises, are not proved because the photographer PW4 himself admitted that photographs Ex PA (colly) do not pertain to raided premises as shown in site plan Ex PW3/B.
18. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 6/7 obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
19. For the reasons discussed above, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is given the benefit of doubt and therefore, the accused Dalbir Singh is acquitted for the offences U/s 39/44 I E Act r/w section 379 IPC for which he was charged.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 19.08.2013 Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/19.08.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/19.08.2013 FIR NO. 185/98 PS Sultanpuri State v. Dalvir Singh 7/7