Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecution Fails to Prove Ownership or Possession of Premises in Electricity Theft Case

The appellant (Electricity Department) filed a complaint alleging that on 12.01.2024, during an inspection at the respondent’s premises in Tehsil Kola, it was discovered that electricity was being stolen despite a previous disconnection in August 2023

An inspection panchnama (Ex. P/1) was prepared, and the loss was assessed at ₹1,15,655/-

The respondent was charged under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act.

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence regarding title/possession of the premises and the absence of electronic evidence certificates

The appellant challenged this acquittal before the High Court.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had title or possession over the premises where the alleged theft occurred

2. Whether the digital evidence (photographs and digital complaint) was admissible without the requisite statutory certificates under the BNSS and the Evidence Act

3. Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffered from patent perversity warranting appellate interference

The court primarily applied Section 135 of the Electricity Act regarding theft of electricity

For the admissibility of electronic evidence, it applied Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 65B (misstated as 65 in text) of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates certificates for digital records

Regarding the scope of appellate jurisdiction against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the court relied on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, establishing that an acquittal should not be disturbed if the trial court’s view is a "possible view"

The court found that the prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of department employees (PW-1 and PW-2) without any independent witnesses

PW-2 admitted he did not collect any documentary proof of the respondent’s title or possession of the searched premises

the court noted a critical procedural lapse: the digital complaint and photographs were not supported by certificates under Section 63 BNSS/Section 65 Evidence Act, rendering them legally unproven

The failure to seize the electric machinery used for the alleged theft and the absence of independent signatures on the panchnama created reasonable doubt

Applying the principle that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must prevail, the High Court held that the Trial Court’s reasoning was neither perverse nor illegal

It held that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s connection to the premises and failed to comply with mandatory rules for proving digital evidence

The appeal was dismissed for being bereft of merit