Chattisgarh High Court
Dilip Kumar Patel vs State Ofchhattisgarh on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:29013
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1017 of 2007
Dilip Kumar Patel, S/o Malikram Patel, aged about 30 years, R/o
Village-Kaduwa, Thana-Saraipaly, Distt. Mahasamund (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
30-06-2025
Challenge in the present appeal is to the legality and validity of the
judgment dated 02-11-2007 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity),
Mahasamund in Special ST No.12/2007 whereby the appellant stands
convicted under Sections 135A of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 379
2
of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1.30 lacs and in default
thereof to suffer four months’ RI.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.11.2005 when CK
Rao, Additional Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department had
gone to Saraipali area for enquiring into electricity theft, he went to
Village-Kendua where the accused/appellant was found to have
connected a wire with LT line illegally and through which electricity was
being supplied to three 60 wt bulbs, cooler, one tubelight, four ceiling
fans etc. in his house and thereby he consumed 378 wt worth
Rs.42,491/. He prepared spot inspection report and got the illegal wire
disconnected. After completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the concerned Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed
charges under Section 135A of Electricity Act and Section 379 of IPC
against the accused which were denied by him and he prayed for trial.
03. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 03
witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC was
recorded wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false
implication. However, no witness was examined by him in his defence.
04. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material
placed on record, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment
3
convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material
available on record. Learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that
the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer and panch
witnesses who were material witnesses and therefore, the case of the
prosecution appears to be doubtful. It has also completely overlooked
the statement of Anwar Ahmad (PW-2) and MK Sao (PW-3) who have
clearly stated that they have no knowledge about the incident or wire
being illegally hooked by the appellant. Further, there is major
contradiction and omission in the statements of the witnesses. No
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution though
available. Alternatively, he lastly submits that the sentence awarded to
the appellant is too harsh and excessive which is not warranted in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court
upon minute examination and appreciation of the overall evidence on
record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the
impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court.
Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to
be dismissed.
4
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the appellant
was charged under Section 135A of Electricity Act and Section 379 of
IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned
trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment.
09. PW-1 Dularsingh Yadav, Assistant Lineman, CSEB, did not
support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In his cross-
examination by the prosecution he states that the police did not
enquire anything from him and denied his police statement Ex.P/2. He
denied that seizure proceedings of Ex.P/1 were conducted before him.
He admitted the suggestion of the defence that the employees of
Electricity Department did not prepare panchanama of personal search
of theirs or the witnesses.
10. PW-2 Anwar Ahmad, Assistant Engineer, CSEB, states that Shri
Rao, Additional Superintending Engineer, informed him that the
accused by connecting wire with LT Line was committing theft of
electricity at Village-Kendua worth Rs.42,490/- on which he lodged
report at PS-Saraipali (Ex.P/3) which bears his signature from A to A
part. In cross-examination he admits that he did not go to Village-
Kendua and whatever he is stating is at the instance of his co-officer.
5
He admits that he did not enquire about the incident personally. He
also admits that the accused had paid the service connection charge,
security deposit and contract charge on 21.10.2005 through Money
Receipt No.4582/160. He also admits that immediately after such
payment, the department takes action for installation of meter.
11. PW-3 MK Sao, Junior Engineer, CSEB, states that on
24.11.2005 he along with officer of Vigilance Department (Electricity)
Shri Rao went for enquiring into electricity theft case at Village-Kendua
where the accused was found committing theft of electricity by hooking
a wire with LT line. He admits his signature on the spot inspection
report of Ex.P/4 from A to A part. However, in cross-examination he
admits the suggestion of the defence that neither they obtained any
document nor did conduct any enquiry to ascertain ownership of the
house in question. He admits that they also did not obtain any
document regarding the fact that the shop in question is run by the
accused. He further admits that they did not find any such witness who
could tell them that the electricity wire is hooked by the accused only
and also admits that at the time of raid, no bulb or tube-light was
burning. He admits that since certain appliances were shown in the
raid, therefore, billing amount was calculated according to its use. In
para 4 he admits that the accused had deposited the connection
charge through Receipt No.4582/160 on 21.10.2005 and prior to that
on 16.9.2005 he had submitted an application for connection. However,
he denied the suggestion that since the officers of the electricity
6
department demanded money from the accused for providing
connection and when the accused told them of complaining about it to
the higher authorities, he was falsely implicated in this case.
12. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the
prosecution has not examined the investigating officer Shri CK Rao for
the reasons best known to it. PW-1 Dularsingh Yadav has not
supported the prosecution case at all. PW-2 Anwar Ahmad admits that
he did not enquire the matter personally and was informed by Shri Rao
about the incident. PW-3 MK Sao also admits that they did not obtain
any document or evidence regarding ownership of the shop or house in
question. PW-2 & PW-3 admit that the accused had paid the requisite
amount for obtaining electricity connection on 21.10.2005 and prior to
that on 16.9.2005 he had submitted application therefor. No
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to
substantiate its case. Looking to the nature and quality of evidence, it
cannot be said with certainty that it is the accused/appellant who
illegally hooked wire with LT Line and committed theft of electricity. It
has come in the evidence of PW-1 that the accused was living in the
house with his family and father. Thus, in view of the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the accused/appellant deserves to
be acquitted of the charges by extending him benefit of doubt.
7
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment
of learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant
stands acquitted of the charges under Section 135A of Electricity Act
and Section 379 of IPC. The amount deposited by the
accused/appellant be refunded to him. He is reported to be on bail,
therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six
months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally signed
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
Judge
2025.07.03
KHAN 16:36:28
+0530Khan