Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The accused was put on trial for the facts that on 19.12.2001, at Sunder Bagh, Khera Road, Khera Kalan,Delhi, accused was found committing theft of electricity directly by tapping the DVB L.V. Mains and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 39 of I.E. Act. Thereafter, investigation was carried out. Site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested, statement of witnesses were recorded and a chargesheet was filed against the accused under section 39 of I.E. Act.

Ld. counsel for accused did not prefer to cross examine PW1.

5. PW2 Ram Narayan has testified that on 19.12.2001, a joint raid was conducted by a joint team comprising himself and Mr. Tripathi alongwith the photographer, police staff and lineman at Khera Kalan where accused Sunil Aggarwal was found indulged in direct theft of electricity from DVB LV Mains. Thereafter illegal wires were removed and cable of 4X25 was seized. 13 photographs Mark A­1 to A­13 were taken. On that day a bill of amount of Rs. 1,88,407/­ was raised against the accused Sunil Aggarwal. Failing in payment, he made a complaint to the SHO of PS S.P. Badli for registration of FIR against the accused. The complaint is Ex. PW2/A. JIR is Ex. PW2/B and the bill is Ex. PW2/C. PW2 further testified that he also handed over relevant document to J.E. Sh. S.N. Tripathi for the purpose of delivery to IO vide memo Ex. PW2/D. PW2 correctly identified the case property which is Ex. P­1.

15. The existence of some artificial means which was used by the accused to commit the theft is another condition which the prosecution carries the onus to establish. Such artificial mean must be a perfected means shown to be in possession and control of the accused. As per the prosecution story, the energy was being abstracted by the accused by connecting the lines with transformer lead of DVB. Thus, the connecting wire is the artificial means for abstraction. However, in the present case, the recovery as well as seizure of such article itself is unreliable. The recovered article which was allegedly used for the commission of offence has been produced before this court but it is not mentioned whether it was in sealed condition or not so possibility of tampering with the case property also can not be ruled out.