Delhi District Court
State vs . Praveen Ahuja Etc. on 5 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MM06 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Manisha Tripathy
State Vs. Praveen Ahuja etc.
FIR No. 274/2000
P.S. :C R Park
Date of institution/separation of case file: 11.01.2012
Date of reserving the judgment: 05.09.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 05.09.2013
J U D G M E N T
1.Serial No. of the Case: 15/2/12
2.Date of the Commission of offence: 17.08.2000
3.Date of institution/separation of case file: 11.01.2012
4.Name of the complainant: Sh R K Aggarwal, AE
5.Name of the accused, Parveen Ahuja,
Parentage & Address: S/o Sh D R Ahuja,
R/o D135, Ajay Enclave
Rajouri Garden, N 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
FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 1/7
9.Date of final order: 05.09.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2000, a joint raid was conducted by a team of DVB officials at K1/135, 1 st Floor, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Chitranjan Park, where accused was found stealing the electricity directly from DVB LV Mains with direct tapping through the cable. In this regard a complaint was lodged and an FIR bearing number 274/2000 under section 379 IPC r/w section 39/44 of I.E. Act was registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park. 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 379 IPC r/w section 39/44 of I.E. Act was framed against the accused on 01.10.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Vide order dated 05.08.2013, in compliance of the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to admit/deny the registration of FIR without admitting the contents of the same, which he admitted and the same was accordingly exhibited as Ex. A1. In view of the admission made, the evidence of the Duty Officer ASI Erush Tigga was dispensed FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 2/7 with.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
6. PW1 S R Verma is member of raiding team. He deposed that on 17.08.2000, a joint raid was conducted at H. No. K1/135, 1st Floor, C R Park, New Delhi where accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. He deposed that case property i.e. electric wires were removed, photographs of the spot were taken. JIR was prepared, photocopy of same, he identified as Mark X. He failed to identify the accused.
In his cross examination, he stated that no documentary evidence was collected to connect the accused as user or owner of the raided premises. He further admitted that no identification mark was put on the wires. He further admitted that no public witness was asked to join the raid.
7. PW2 R K Aggarwal, PW3 Khushal Singh are another raiding party member. He also deposed on the similar lines as PW1. Therefore, his deposition is being not reproduced for the sake of brevity. In addition, both the witnesses identified the photographs as Ex PA (colly).
8. PW4 ASI Rameshwar Prasad is the investigating officer. He deposed that on receiving of FIR Ex PW4/A and complaint Mark Y, he met the complainant Sh R K Aggarwal, AE, DVB and procured documents and also prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, photocopy of which he identified as Mark Z. He further deposed that he seized the case property. He identified photocopy document Mark Z1 as copy of FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 3/7 seizure memo of case property. He also identified the photographs as Ex PA(colly). He deposed that he received sanction U/s 50 I E Act from concerned authority. He proved the arrest and personal search of accused vide Ex PW4/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses. He identified the accused.
In his cross examination, he stated that he was not the member of raiding team. He admitted that no documentary evidence was collected to connect the accused as user or owner of the raided premises. He further admitted that no public witness was asked to join the raid.
9. PW5 Shiv Prakash is the photographer. He deposed that 1012 years ago, he accompanied AE Sh Aggarwal and went with raiding team and clicked photographs of the raided premises and after developing the same, he handed over the photographs as well as negatives to Mr Aggarwal. He identified the photographs as Ex PA (colly), however, negatives of the same were not on record.
In his cross examination, he stated that his name is not Prakash Chand as mentioned in the summons, however, he is known as Prakash.
10. Thereafter, several opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to adduce the evidence requisite to prove the case against the accused. However, despite several opportunities having been provided to the prosecution for leading the evidence, the prosecution has been able to produce only above mentioned witnesses. After giving sufficient opportunities for leading evidence, the right of the prosecution to lead further evidence was closed on 05.08.2013 as the material witnesses FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 4/7 were already examined.
11. Thereafter, the statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.08.2013. In his statement, the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He did not not wish to lead defence evidence.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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. Further none of the witnesses could testify as to owner of the raided premises. They also failed to testify as to role of the accused at the raiding premises and how raiding party FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 5/7 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Further, another, lacunae in the prosecution case regarding non production of original seizure memo. The seizure memo by which the case property was stated to have been seized was never produced before the court. One photocopy document Mark Z1 was identified by IO as photocopy of seizure memo. No explanation has been offered as to why original seizure memo is not produced. The entitlement to prove the seizure memo by way of secondary evidence was neither raised nor proved. Under the circumstances, the photocopied document purporting to be the copy of seizure memo, is not to be read in evidence.
18. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 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. 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 Praveen Ahuja is acquitted for the offences for which he was charged.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 05.09.2013 Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/05.09.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/05.09.2013 FIR NO. 274/2000 PS Chitranjan Park State v. Parveen Ahuja 7/7