Failure to seize material evidence and report obstruction of process justifies acquittal in electricity theft cases.

The petitioner electricity company filed a case against the respondent alleging theft of electricity for commercial purposes (consuming 8.5 K.V.A.) via a welding machine and grinder.

The Special Court (Electricity), Bhopal, vide judgment dated 18.11.2013, acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 135 and 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioner challenged this acquittal, asserting that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence proving the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a manifest error in the appreciation of evidence regarding the alleged theft of electricity.

2. Whether the failure to seize the material objects (welding machine and grinder) used for the alleged theft was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal.

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225, which mandates that an appellate court should only disturb an acquittal if the trial court's findings are "palpably wrong" or "manifestly erroneous".

Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110, holding that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted.

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605, which reinforces the double presumption of innocence in favor of an acquitted accused.

The High Court observed that while the prosecution claimed the respondent used a welding machine and grinder for electricity theft, these material pieces of evidence were never seized.

Although prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) explained in cross-examination that they were obstructed and abused by the respondent’s father, the Court noted this crucial fact was absent from the initial complaint and official documents.

No police report was filed regarding the alleged obstruction.

Consequently, the Court found that the trial court’s decision to disbelieve the complainant’s evidence was a reasonable view.

Applying the cited precedents, the High Court determined there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court's reasoning that would justify interfering with the acquittal.

The High Court affirmed that the benefit of the doubt was rightly extended to the respondent due to the lack of seized material evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative.

The petition was dismissed.