Delhi District Court
State vs . Narender on 1 October, 2014
Page No. -1- of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA :
M.M.03(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Narender
FIR NO. : 699/99
P.S. : Sultan Puri
U.S. : 379 IPC r/w 39/44 IE Act.
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 2344/07 dt. 06.07.07
date of its institution
b. Name of the complainant : AE B.S. Saini Z519, Sec.20, Rohini Extn.
Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 30.06.1999
d. Name of the accused : Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
H. No. 563, Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 379 IPC & 39/44 IE Act
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Date reserved for orders : 01.10.2014
h. Final order : Acquitted.
i. Date of such order : 01.10.2014.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off present FIR which was registered on the complaint of AE Shri B.S. Saini Z519, Sec.20, Rohini Extn.
2. In brief the story of prosecution is that on 30.06.1999 at unknown time at opposite plot no. 13, Village Pooth Kalan, Khasra no. 106/1, accused found St v Narender FIR No. 699/99 Page No. -2- of 5 committing theft of electricity by direct connection and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 379 IPC read with 39/44 I.E. Act and within my cognizance.
3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to accused and after completion of necessary formalities, charge u/s.379 IPC r/w 39/44 I.E Act was framed against the accused on 06.05.2009 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined six (06) PWs. Statement of accused was also recorded U/sec. 313 Cr.PC whereby accused denied the story of the prosecution. The relevant and material extract of evidence produced by the prosecution is as mentioned in the following paragraphs.
5. PW1 ASI Darshan Kumar deposed that on 9.7.1999 he was duty officer at PS Sultanpuri from 4PM to 12 night ; he recd. a complaint endorsed by SHO through his reader ; on the basis of same ; he recorded the present FIR Ex PW1/A and after registration of same ; he handed over the same to SI Surender .
6. PW2 Sh. K.P.S. Yadav, Sr. Manager, TPDDL, CEG Town Circle, Pitam Puri, Delhi deposed that on 30.6.1999 he was posted as Inspector in Zone520 Sector20, Rohini, Poothkala ; on that day a raid was conducted in village Poothkala by a team comprising of zonal staff, enforcement and MTD department and accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by using illegal wires from DVB pole ; subsequently the JIR Ex PW2/A was prepared ; wires were removed to serve as material evidence ; he do not remember whether the accused was present at spot or not and he can identify the case property but SHO of PS Sultanpuri submitted his report that case property was stolen by the then MHCM against whom a criminal case St v Narender FIR No. 699/99 Page No. -3- of 5 was registered. Report is Ex P1 ; photograph shown to witness which is Ex PA (colly).
7. PW3 Sh. V.K.Sharma, Retd. MO deposed on the line of PW2.
8. PW4 Inspector Surender Kumar deposed that on 9.7.1999, he was serving as SI at PS Sultanpuri ; on that day he recd the copy of FIR Ex PW2/A from DO along with complaint Ex PW4/B ; then he met complainant Sh. B.S. Saini, AE, DVB ; procure necessary documents i.e. JIR etc from him ; site plan Ex PW4/B at the instance of complainant ; he tried to search the accused but could not find him ; he seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex PW4/C and complainant handed over him four photographs ; on 04.4.2000 accused was arrested vide memo Ex PW4/D and he was personally searched vide memo Ex PW4/E ; he recd the sanction u/s. 50 IE Act from concerned authority ; recorded the statement of witnesses ; prepared the challan and handed over the same to SHO for forwarding ; accused Narender & photographs Ex PA(colly) were correctly identified by accused. As far as case property is concerned, SHO of PS Sultanpuri submitted his report that case property was stolen by the then MHCM against whom a criminal case was registered. Report is Ex P1.
9. PW5 Sh. B.S.Saini, Retd. AE is the complainant of the present case who also deposed on the line of PW2 and PW3.
10. 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.
11. In a criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the case St v Narender FIR No. 699/99 Page No. -4- of 5 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 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.
12. Further it is the case of the prosecution that JIR was prepared. However, 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.
13. Photographs of the raided premises were taken but perusal of these photographs does not show that property which was raided was the property in question. Further, these photographs have not been proved as per law as neither photographer was made witness nor negatives of the same have been produced.
14. Further, case property has not been produced in court. No reason has been explained for not producing the case property in court.
15. Further no proof regarding the ownership of accused in respect of St v Narender FIR No. 699/99 Page No. -5- of 5 premises in question has been produced to shows that accused persons are the owner or user of the premises which were raided by DVB. This fact weaken the case of the prosecution.
16. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an 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.
17. As a result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and they are given the benefit of doubt and therefore, accused Narender is acquitted for the offences for which he was charged.
18. File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (ANKIT SINGLA)
the open Court on 01.10.2014 MM03/ South District / Saket Courts.
Saket / New Delhi
St v Narender FIR No. 699/99
Page No. -6- of 5
St v Narender FIR No. 699/99