Acquittal in electricity theft case sustained due to non-seizure of materials and failure to prove premises' ownership.

On August 24, 2021, a Vigilance Flying Squad inspected a premises in village Bagharupa and allegedly found the accused committing electricity theft by connecting wires directly from a transformer to household appliances.

A digital panchnama and site inspection report were prepared on a tablet, and the electricity company assessed a total liability of Rs. 40,100/-.

The complainant filed a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. After trial, the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Beena, acquitted the respondents on June 15, 2023.

The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing that the digital evidence and testimonies of the inspection team (PW-1 to PW-3) sufficiently proved the theft.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were in possession/title of the premises where the alleged theft occurred.

2. Whether the failure to seize physical evidence (wires/equipment) and include independent witnesses vitiates the case for conviction.

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a trial court’s order of acquittal when a "possible view" has been taken.

The court applied Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which penalizes the dishonest abstraction of electricity.

Regarding appellate jurisdiction, the court relied on Section 378 of the CrPC and the principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should only be overturned if the trial court’s view is "perverse" or legally "impossible".

It further cited Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. (2016) regarding the court's duty to avoid miscarriage of justice.

The High Court observed significant evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. Primarily, the inspecting officers (PW-2 and PW-3) admitted during cross-examination that they failed to collect any documentation (title deeds or tax receipts) proving the accused's ownership or possession of the house.

Furthermore, the court noted a critical lack of corroboration: no independent witnesses from the locality (such as the Sarpanch or Kotwara) were joined, and the physical instruments of theft—the wires and equipment—were never seized or produced.

Although photographs were taken, the transformer was not visible in them, and the local distribution center was not informed.

Applying the "two views" doctrine, the court reasoned that since the trial court's conclusion of acquittal was a plausible interpretation of these factual omissions, there was no patent perversity warranting interference.

Following the principle that the view favorable to the accused must prevail if two views are possible, the court found no grounds to set aside the trial court’s findings.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge.