Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Chander Malik Etc on 19 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MM06(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Manisha Tripathy
State Vs. Ram Chander Malik Etc
FIR No. 270/96
P.S. :Shalimar Bagh
Unique ID No. R0012701996
Date of institution of case: 05.08.1996
Date of reserving the judgment: 19.09.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 19.09.2013
J U D G M E N T
1.Serial No. of the Case: 546/07
2.Date of the Commission of offence: 07.05.1996
3.Date of Institution of the case: 05.08.1996
4.Name of the complainant: Sh M K Singh,
5.Name of the accused, 1. Ram Chander Malik
Parentage & Address: S/o Kehar Singh.
Vill Sandil, Distt. Jind,
PS Rajoan, Haryana.
2. Md Abdul,
FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 1/8
S/o Md Shakur,
H. No. 744, Gali No.11,
Ambedkar Nagar, 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
9.Date of final order: 19.09.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.1996, a joint raid was conducted by a team of DVB officials where accused Ram Chander Malik and Md Abdul were found stealing the electricity directly from DVB LV Mains at H. No. 741, Gali No.9, Ambedkar Nagar Extension, Haiderpur, New Delhi and at H. No. 744, Gali No.11, Ambedkar Nagar Extension, Haiderpur, New Delhi respectively. In this regard a complaint was lodged and an FIR bearing number 270/96 under section 379 IPC r/w section 39/44 of I.E. Act was registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. 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.
FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 2/8
3. On the basis of the chargesheet and annexed documents, prima facie case was made out, charge for the offence punishable under section 39 I.E. Act was framed against both the accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 22.11.2000 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh M K Singh is the complainant and member of raiding team. He deposed that on 07.05.1996, raid was conducted by DVB officials along with photographer and police at Ambedkar Nagar Gali No. 9 & 11, Haiderpur where accused Ramchander Malik and Abdul were found stealing electricity directly form DVB LV Mains at H. No. 741, Gali No.9, Ambedkar Nagar Extension, Haiderpur, New Delhi and at H. No. 744, Gali No.11, Ambedkar Nagar Extension, Haiderpur, New Delhi respectively. He further deposed that photographs were taken, illegal wires were removed and complaint Ex PW1/A was given to the SHO. He further deposed that case property was handed to the IO which was seized vide Ex PW1/C. He identified the case property which was produced in unsealed condition. This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
6. PW2 A K Sharma is another raiding party member. He deposed on the similar lines as PW1, hence, his deposition is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. In addition, he identified the photographs as Mark A1 to A14.
In his cross examination, he failed to depose the name of the FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 3/8 photographer who had accompanied the raiding team. He admitted that no document was collected to show whether accused persons were owner of user of the raided premises. He further stated that workers were present on all the raided premises but he failed to depose the name of workers who had disclosed the name of the accused as owner of the raided premises/factory. He further stated that premises number were not shown on any premises and the same were disclosed by the labourers present at the spot but he also admitted that no efforts were made to confirm the information given by the labourers. He further stated that wires were removed by Mistri named Vedpal and handed over to the police. He also admitted that similar wires are easily available in the market. He further admitted that no public persons were asked to join the raid.
7. PW3 Ct. Raj Singh is a police personnel who had joined the raiding party. He also deposed on the similar lines as PW1, hence, his deposition is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
In his cross examination, he stated that name of the accused persons disclosed by public persons present at the spot as accused persons had already ran away on seeing the raiding team but he failed to disclosed the name of such public persons. He failed to disclose the nature of activities/business carried out by accused persons at the raided premises. He also failed to disclose the distance of LV Mains from the raided premises. He further admitted that no public persons were asked FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 4/8 to join the raid.
8. PW4 Ct. Dharampal is witness of arrest. He deposed that accused Ram Chander Malik was arrested and personally searched in his presence vide Ex PW3/A.
9. PW5 ASI Mahavir Singh is the investigating officer of the case. He deposed that on receiving of copy of FIR Mark A and complaint Ex PW1/A, he met DESU Officials D K Sharma, A K Singh and M K Singh and procured documents i.e. JIR etc and also prepared site plan vide Ex PW5/A at the instance of these officials. He further deposed that he seized the photographs and negatives vide Ex PW1/B and case property vide Ex PW1/C. He further deposed regarding arrest of accused Ram Chander Malik and Md Abdul. He also identified the photographs as Mark P1(colly) and he also identified the accused persons.
In his cross examination, he admitted that no document was collected to connect the accused with raided premises. He also admitted that no identification mark was put on the wires. He also admitted that no public persons were asked to join the investigation. He failed to identify the photographs as to which photographs belongs to which premises.
10. Thereafter, several opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to adduce the evidence requisite to prove the case against the accused persons. It is pertinent to note that the matter is subjudice since the year 1996 and the charge against the accused persons was framed on 22.11.2000. Thereafter, despite several opportunities having been FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 5/8 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 11.07.2013.
11. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 25.07.2013. In their statements, they claimed innocence and false implication. They 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 persons were the consumer receiving electricity from the complainant company and when the raid was conducted, they were 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 persons who were 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 FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 6/8 guilt. No documentary proof whatever has been placed on record to connect the accused persons 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 persons at the raided premises and how raiding party came to the conclusion that accused persons were 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 persons.
15. Thus, it is needless to say that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was the accused persons who were the consumer at the time of the raid and were abstracting the electricity by applying some artificial means.
16. Further, the Joint Inspection Report regarding the observation made by the raiding team during the raid, has not been prepared by the raiding team in the instant case. No explanation has been given as to why Joint Inspection Report was not prepared. In absence of Joint Inspection Report, which is normally the foundation of the case of theft of electricity, the raid itself becomes doubtful.
17. Further, another lacunae in the prosecution case pertains to unsealed condition of the case property which was produced before the court and it was also not having any identification mark. The raiding party members could not even depose as to whether the case property contained wires FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 7/8 removed from the various premises raided on that day or it was removed only from the premises of accused persons. In view of deposition of raiding party members and in absence of any mark of identification and due to nonsealing of case property, it cannot be safely hold that the case property is the same which were removed from the raided premises.
18. As a result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and they are given the benefit of doubt and therefore, the accused Ram Chander Malik and Md Abdul are acquitted for the offences for which they were charged.
19. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 19.09.2013 Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/19.09.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 8 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/19.09.2013 FIR NO. 270/96 PS Shalimar Bagh State v. Ram Chander Malik Etc. 8/8