Delhi District Court
State vs . Aman Singh on 22 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA :
M.M.03(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Aman Singh
FIR NO. : 720/1998
P.S. : S.P. Badli
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 : 1041/07 dt. 20.2.2007
date of its institution
b. Name of the complainant : S.K.Sharma, Assistant Electrical
Engineer Zone No. 581, DVB, Rohini.
Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : On 15.05.1997
Name of the accused : Aman Singh S/o Bani Singh
R/o Village Safiyabad, PS Rai,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
House No. M47,Arya Samaj Road
Narela, 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 : 07.04.2014.
h. Final order : Acquittal
i Date of such order : 22.04.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1 Vide this order, I shall dispose off present FIR No. 720/1998 which was
registered on the complaint of Shri S.K. Sharma, Assitant Electrical Engineer on 25.09.1998.
2 In brief the story of prosecution is that on 13.05.1997 at unknown time at Khasra no. 136, within the jurisdiction of PS S.P.Badli accused committed theft of electricity 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.379IPCr/w39/44I.E Act was framed against the accused on 18.03.2011 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 The prosecution to prove its case examined seven (07) PWs.vide order dated24.01.2014 Ld.Predecessor closed the prosecution evidence through a detailed order. 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 Shri S.L. Goyal, Retd. Executive Engineer deposed that on 22.6.2000 he was posted as Executive Engineer at Rohini and had agiven permission u/s. 50 of I.E. Act Ex PW1/A. PW2 Shri A.N. Shrivastav, Retd. JE deposed that on 01.09.1998 he was posted as JE in the area of Badli Village and on that day, a complaint Ex PW2/A was given to the SHO of PS S.P. Badli for lodging of FIR. However he was not the member of the raiding party.
PW3 Shri S.K. Sharma, Retd. AE deposed that on 01.09.1998 he was posted as AEE, Zone581, DVB Rohini and on the basis of the JIR received from the Executive Engineer, he lodged a complaint Ex PW2/A at PS S.P. Badli ; he had enclosed copy of approval form XEN E & F1 ; copy of JIR, copy of MTD report & copy of covering note SEN D, Rohini. Inspection report through XEN is Mark A. PW4 SI Brij Mohan deposed that on 25.09.1998 he was posted as SI at PS SP Badli and on that day he received the copy of complaint Ex PW2/A attested by him ; h e got the FIR registered through the duty officer ; he met complainant S.K. Sharma AE DVB and procure necessary documents from him ; site plan Ex PW4/A was prepared at the instance of the complainant. During investigation it was revealed to him that raided premises belongs to one Brij Mohan from whom he collected the copy of rent agreement Mark B (colly) ; he tried to search the accused but could not find him. On 30.1.2000, accused was having anticipatory bail, was formally arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex PW4/B and Ex PW4/C ; he sent notice to one N. K. Srivastava, XEN for producing the case property but he failed to do so. Notice is Mark C ; he received the sanction Ex PW1/A u/s. 50 of IE Act from concerned authority and recorded statement of witnesses ; prepared challan and handed over the same to SHO for forwarding. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
PW5 Shree Bhagwan stated that he is the owner of the Khasra No. 52/33, Badli with total area of 400 sq. yards ; his ancestral property belongs to Khasra no. 136/2 ; accused had taken premises no. 52/33 on rent from him in 19972000 ; there was proper electric connection in the said premises ; in 2000 the said premises was raided by DVB staff and then he got know that accused was stealing electricity in the said premises. He could not identify the accused due to lapse of time its been about 15 years. This witness wrongly identified the accused thus this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP.
PW6 Surender Kumar deposed that he do not know anything abut the present case. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. APP.
PW7 Brij Mohan deposed that he do not know anything abut the present case. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. APP.
6 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. 7 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 found indulged in committing theft of electricity,but none of prosecution witnesses deposed that they say the accused commiting theft of electricity or they found on the premises in question such theft taking place.Prosecution prodeced only three official witnesses and none of them depsed that any electricity was being stolen at the property in question at the relevant time.
8 Thus, it is needless to say that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was found commiting theft of electricity.
9 Further,there is unexplained delay of more than 15 months in lodging complaiint to police in the present case.
10 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.
11 Further, another, lacunae in the prosecution case regarding the non production of the case property. Case property pertaining to present case was never produced before the court nor even during investigation .. In absence of case property i.e. the medium through which theft of electricity was being carried by accused, it cannot be safely hold that theft of electricity was being carried out as alleged by the prosecution.
12 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.
13 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, the accused Aman Singh is acquitted for the offences for which he is charged. 14 File be consigned to record room.
Announced and dictated in (ANKITSINGLA)
the open Court on 22.04.2014 MM03 SouthDistrict
Saket / New Delhi