Delhi District Court
State vs . C L Verma on 19 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MM06(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Manisha Tripathy
State Vs. C L Verma
FIR No. 726/01
P.S. : Dabri
Unique ID No.R0968862004
Date of institution of case: 29.05.2004
Date of reserving the judgment: 14.10.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 19.11.2013
J U D G M E N T
1.Serial No. of the Case: 1656/07
2.Date of the Commission of offence: 25.08.2001
3.Date of Institution of the case: 29.05.2004
4.Name of the complainant: Sh Attar Singh, Er.
5.Name of the accused, C L Verma,
Parentage & Address: S/o Mallu Singh,
R/o C47, Dabri Extn
East, New Delhi.
Also at RZ127, Raghu Nagar,
New Delhi.
6.Offence complained or proved: U/s. 39 I.E.Act r/w s. 379 IPC
7.Plea of accused: "Not guilty"
FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 1/8
8.Final order: Acquitted
9.Date of final order: 19.11.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2001, a joint raid was conducted by a team of DVB officials in the area of Dabri Extension East including at RZC47, Dabri Extension East, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Dabri, where accused was found stealing the electricity directly from DVB LV Mains. In this regard a complaint was lodged and an FIR bearing number 726/2001 under section 379 IPC r/w section 39 of I.E. Act was registered at Police Station Dabri. 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 16.03.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Vide order dated 03.09.2012, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit/deny the genuineness of FIR, which he admitted. In view of the admission made, the evidence of FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 2/8 the duty officer was dispensed with.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
6. PW1 Attar Singh is the complainant as well as member of raiding team. He deposed that on 25.08.2001, a raid was conducted in the area of RZC47, Dabri Extension, Delhi and JIR Ex PW1/B was prepared and thereafter, on 30.08.2001, he gave written complaint Ex PW1/A to the SHO. He further deposed that on 24.01.2002, he also gave additional complaint Ex PW1/C to the SHO. He identified the case property as Ex P1 (colly).
In his cross examination, he stated that raiding team comprised of 56 persons. He failed to answer as to how many places were raided on that day or by which mode of transportation, they reached the spot. He stated that he received a written complaint bearing the name of owner as C L Verma and was not aware of the actual of user of the raided premises. He admitted that no identification mark was put on case property. He further admitted that such types of wires are easily available in the market.
7. PW2 R K Sharma is another raiding party member. He deposed that on 25.08.2001, a raid was conducted at RZC47, Dabri Extension, Delhi and JIR Ex PW1/B was prepared. He identified the case property.
In his cross examination, he stated that raiding team comprised of 56 persons. He failed to answer as to how many places were raided on that day. He stated that he received a written complaint hence no FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 3/8 public person was asked to join the raid. He admitted that no identification mark was put on case property. He further admitted that such types of wires are easily available in the market.
8. PW3 Rajesh Rohilla is public witness who was neighbour of accused. He stated that he was not present at the time of raid. He further deposed that some dying and coloring work was conducted at C47, Dabri Extension East which was in the possession of accused Naresh Rai and they complained the matter to DVB several times but no regularized electricity connection was issued to the premises. He identified the accused C L Verma.
9. PW4 Rajender, PW5 Chotte Lal and PW6 Banwari Lal Joshi are other public witnesses who were also neighbours of accused C L Verma. They also deposed on the similar lines as PW3. Therefore, their depositions are being not reproduced for the sake of brevity. PW6 in his cross examination stated that accused C L Verma is having two houses at Dabri and both the houses are having electricity connection in the name of accused and his wife. He admitted that accused C L Verma was not residing at the raided premises.
10. PW7 Mahender Singh Pal and PW8 Charan Jeet are another public witnesses. They deposed that they are also neighbour of accused C L Verma. They deposed that accused C L Verma had given premises no. RZC47, Dabri Extension East on rent to a person who was running a factory at the said premises. They identified the accused C L Verma.
FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 4/8 Further, both the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
11. PW9 Deepak Kumar is the photographer. He deposed that AE Atar Singh had handed over him negative of the present case to develop the same and after developing the same, he handed over the photographs and negatives to AE Atar Singh. He identified the photographs as Ex P1 to P4.
12. PW10 S K Jain is formal DVB official. He proved sanction U/s 50 I E Act vide Ex PW10/A.
13. PW11 S K Manocha is another photographer. He deposed that police had handed over him four negatives of the present case to develop the same and after developing the same, he handed over the 8 photographs ( two copies of each negatives) and negatives to police. He identified the photographs as Ex P1 to P4.
14. PW12 Ct Balwan Singh is police witness. He deposed that on 03.09.2001, Atar Singh handed over the case property i.e. electric wires alongwith photographs to the IO which were sealed with the seal of SP and seized vide Ex PW12/A & PW12/B respectively.
15. PW13 HC Himmat Singh is another police witness. He deposed that on 25.09.2001, he joined the investigation with IO/HC Kishori Lal and arrested the accused C L Verma vide Ex PW13/A and IO also conducted his personal search vide Ex PW13/B.
16. PW14 Retd. HC Kishori Lal is the investigating officer. He deposed that FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 5/8 on receiving copy of FIR Mark X and complaint Ex PW1/C, he met the complainant Sh Attar Singh AE and procured documents and also prepared site plan Ex PW14/A. He deposed that he received sanction U/s 50 I E Act from concerned authority. He further deposed that he seized the case property i.e. black color wires and photographs vide Ex PW12/A & Ex PW12/B respectively. He proved the arrest and personal search of accused vide Ex PW13/A & PW13/B respectively. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses. He identified the accused C L Verma as well as the photographs.
In his cross examination, he stated that he was not the member of raiding team. He showed his ignorance whether any documentary evidence was collected to connect the accused as user or owner of the raided premises during the investigation or not. He admitted that no public witness was asked to join the investigation. He further admitted that site plan does not bear the signature of complainant Attar Singh. He further admitted that negatives of the photographs are not on judicial record.
17. Thereafter, several opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to adduce the evidence requisite to prove the case against the accused. It is pertinent to note that the matter is subjudice since the year 2004 and the charge against the accused was framed on 16.03.2012. Thereafter, despite several opportunities having been provided to the prosecution for leading the evidence, the prosecution has been able to produce only FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 6/8 above mentioned witnesses. After giving sufficient opportunities for leading evidence, the right of the prosecution to lead further evidence was closed on 17.08.2013 as the material witnesses were already examined.
18. Thereafter, the statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.09.2013. In his statement, the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He did not not wish to lead defence evidence.
19. 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
20. 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 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.
21. 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. None of the raiding party members have testified as to who was the user FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 7/8 of the raided premises. The public witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 & PW8 have categorically stated that accused Naresh Rai was using the raided premises for the dying and coloring work as the accused C L Verma had rented out the premises to accused Naresh Rai. In view of the testimony of abovesaid witnesses, it is clear that the accused was not the user or consumer of the electricity at the raided premises and as such, cannot be held responsible for theft of electricity therein.
22. 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.
23. As a result, 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 C L Verma is acquitted for the offences for which he was charged.
24. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 19.11.2013 Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/19.11.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Manisha Tripathy
MM06(South)/19.11.2013
FIR NO. 726/01 PS Dabri State v. C L Verma 8/8