Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1454 (MP)

Ramsushil S/O Ramkhelawan v. State Of M. P.

2008-12-18

A.K.SAXENA

body2008
JUDGMENT : The appellant Ramsushil has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28-3-2006 passed by the Special Judge, Umeriya in Special Case No. 13/05, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine as stated in paragraph 18 of the judgment. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to prosecution story, P.W.1 Subhash Sen along with staff, went at the place of incident on 7-1-2004 for surprise inspection. He found that the appellant Ramsushil connected the wire of electricity line with another wire illegally and committed theft of electricity. He was running flour mill with the help of electricity P.W.1 Subhash Sen prepared panchnama Ex.P/3 and lodged the report Ex.P/1. Police completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement of P.W. 1 Subhash Sen is important because P.W.2 Shivdhar Tripathi has been declared hostile and the statement of P.W.3 Mohanlal Tiwari is not very much material, P.W. 4 Umashankar Dwivedi also stated few facts, which are also in favour of the appellant. 4. It is clear from the statements of P.W.1 Subhash Sen and P.W.4 Umashankar Dwivedi that the appellant was not present at the place of incident when surprise checking was conducted. P.W.1 Subhash Sen stated that the person, who was running flour mill, went from there when the flour mill was checked and the villagers disclosed this fact that Ramsushil is the owner of the flour mill. P.W.4 Umashankar Dwivedi also admitted in paragraph 2 of his statement that when the flour mill was checked, Ramsushil was not present there. It becomes clear from the statements of these witnesses that the statements of these two witnesses are not believable. 5. P.W.1 Subhash Sen admitted in paragraph 4 that the panchnama and report Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/3 were prepared either at the police station or at his office. It means, no documents were prepared at the place of incident. This witness further admitted in paragraph 10 that Ramsushil had not committed the theft of electricity, but thereafter he changed his statement. The whole statement of this witness clearly shows that he is not a believable witness. It means, no documents were prepared at the place of incident. This witness further admitted in paragraph 10 that Ramsushil had not committed the theft of electricity, but thereafter he changed his statement. The whole statement of this witness clearly shows that he is not a believable witness. Since, the statements of P.W.1 Subhash Sen and P.W. 4 Umashankar Dwivedi are not believable to come to this conclusion that the appellant committed the theft of electricity, therefore, the whole case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant Ramsushil is acquitted of the charge under section 135 of the Electricity Act. The amount of fine, if deposited, it be refunded to the appellant. The seized property shall be returned back to the appellant.