Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhim Singh on 17 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MM06(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Manisha Tripathy
State Vs. Bhim Singh
FIR No. 70/99
P.S. : Keshav Puram
Unique ID No.R0033021999
Date of institution of case: 18.12.1999
Date of reserving the judgment: 17.12.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment:17.12.2013
J U D G M E N T
1.Serial No. of the Case: 1172/07
2.Date of the Commission of offence: 09.03.1999
3.Date of Institution of the case: 18.12.1999
4.Name of the complainant: Sh P C Mishra, AE.
5.Name of the accused, Bhim Singh,
Parentage & Address: S/o Sh Kalu Ram,
R/o 258, Rampura,
Trinagar, Delhi.
6.Offence complained or proved: U/s. 39/44 I.E.Act r/w s.379 IPC
FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 1/7
7.Plea of accused: "Not guilty"
8.Final order: Acquitted
9.Date of final order: 17.12.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.1999, a joint raid was conducted by a team of DVB officials at 2884, Gali No.2 & 5, Vishram Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram, where accused was found indulged in theft of electricity through LV Mains. In this regard a complaint was lodged and an FIR bearing number 70/99 under section 379 IPC r/w section 39/44 of I.E. Act was registered at Police Station Keshav Puram. 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 21.01.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
5. PW1 P C Mishra is the complainant who proved the complaint vide Ex FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 2/7 PW1/A. He deposed that he handed over the case property which was recovered from accused vide seizure memo Ex PW1/B. He proved direct theft assessment bill vide Ex PW1/C. He identified four photographs as Mark X (colly) and photocopied document Mark Y as copy of JIR. He also identified the case property i.e. two meters bearing no. 901162 & 9601473 alongwith bundles of cables vide Ex P1, P2 and P3 (colly).
In his cross examination, he admitted that he was not the member of raiding team. He further 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. He further admitted that registered consumer of meter no. 901162 is Kanwar Pal, R/o H. No. 2834, Plot No.13, Vishram Nagar, Trinagar, Delhi and registered consumer of meter no. 9601473 is Dinesh, R/o 2884, Visharam Nagar, Trinagar, Delhi.
6. PW2 L R Mehta is raiding party member. He deposed that on 09.03.1999, a joint raid was conducted at Vishram Nagar, Trinagar, New Delhi where residents of Vishram Nagar including the accused were found indulged in direct theft of electricity as electricity meter was found fabricated and not belonging to DVB. He deposed that JIR was prepared. He identified photocopied document Mark Y as copy of JIR. He also identified the case property i.e. two meters bearing no. 901162 & 9601473 alongwith bundles of cables vide Ex P1, P2 and P3 (colly).
In his cross examination, he admitted that no documentary FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 3/7 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. He further admitted that registered consumer of meter no. 901162 is Kanwar Pal, R/o H. No. 2834, Plot No.13, Vishram Nagar, Trinagar, Delhi and registered consumer of meter no. 9601473 is Dinesh, R/o 2884, Visharam Nagar, Trinagar, Delhi.
7. PW3 Ct Suresh Kumar is formal police witness who joined the investigation with the IO/ASI Satyadev. He proved the arrest and personal search memo of the accused vide Ex PW3/A. He identified the accused.
8. PW4 Retd. ASI Satyadev is the investigating officer. He deposed that on receiving of FIR Ex PW4/A and complaint, he met the complainant Sh P C Mishra, AE and procured documents and also prepared site plan vide Ex PW4/C. He deposed that he received photographs and seized the case property i.e. two meters and two bundles of cables vide Ex PW4/D. He further deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex PW3/A. He identified the photographs as well as the accused.
In his cross examination, he admitted that he was not the member of raiding team. He further 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.
FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 4/7
9. 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 1999 and the charge against the accused was framed on 21.01.2012. Thereafter, 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 21.08.2013 as the material witnesses were already examined.
10. Thereafter, the statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.10.2013. In his statement, the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He did not not wish to lead defence evidence.
11. 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
12. 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 FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 5/7 facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction.
13. 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 raided premises and how raiding party came to the conclusion that accused was responsible for theft of the electricity at the raided premises. In fact, accused is not even stated to be the registered consumer of the meters installed at the raided premises and it is admitted by prosecution witnesses that one Kanwar Pal and Dinesh were the registered consumer of the meters installed at the raided premises. Therefore, 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 6/7 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.
16. Further, another lacunae in the prosecution case regarding the unsealed condition of the case property which was produced before the court and it was also not having any identification mark. 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.
17. 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 Bhim Singh is acquitted for the offences for which he was charged.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 17.12.2013 Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/17.12.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Manisha Tripathy MM06(South)/17.12.2013 FIR NO. 70/99 PS Keshav Puram State v. Bhim Singh 7/7