Acquittal Upheld Where Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses and Failure to Seize Material Evidence Created Reasonable Doubt

On September 5, 2014, the appellant, a Junior Engineer, inspected the respondent’s house in village Pali and allegedly found a direct illegal connection to the LT line

A Panchnama (Ex.P/1) and assessment order were prepared, alleging a total load of 870 watts and a financial loss of Rs. 23,966/- to the electricity company

The respondent was charged under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. After the trial court acquitted the respondent on November 7, 2022, the complainant filed this appeal challenging the acquittal

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt regarding the unauthorized use of electricity

2. Whether the non-inclusion of independent witnesses and failure to seize material evidence rendered the prosecution’s case suspicious

3. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the appellate court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal

The court primarily applied Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which penalizes the dishonest abstraction of electricity

H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be overturned if the trial court’s view is a "possible view"

Bapupuri v. M.P. Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. (2009) regarding the necessity of corroboration in electricity theft cases

The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested solely on interested departmental witnesses

PW-2 (an employee) turned hostile, admitting he signed the Panchnama at the instance of the complainant and contradicting the claim that the accused refused to sign

Despite the inspection occurring in a "dense residential area," no independent witnesses were joined or notified, which the court held raised significant suspicion

The court noted a fatal lapse in procedure: the complainant failed to seize the appliances (fans, TV, bulbs) allegedly used for the theft and failed to produce documents proving the accused’s title or possession of the premises

Applying the standard of "perversity," the court found the trial court’s appreciation of evidence to be reasonable and consistent with the law

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal

Under the settled law of appeals against acquittal, the court found no patent perversity or misreading of evidence that would warrant interference