Farmer Acquitted Of Power Theft After Chhattisgarh HC Finds No Proof He Owned The Field Or Was Linked To Hooked Line

The prosecution alleged that, on 2 March 2016, the appellant used electricity by directly hooking into a low-tension line to operate a 5 HP agricultural pump and lights at a brick kiln.

The electricity department assessed a loss of ₹2,35,139 and submitted a complaint to the police

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and imposed a fine of ₹7,05,417, with nine months’ simple imprisonment in default

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, contending, among other things, that the evidence did not establish his connection to the premises or the alleged unauthorised use

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, criminalises theft of electricity, including unauthorised use of electricity as alleged in this case

The prosecution was required to establish the appellant’s responsibility for the alleged unauthorised use beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence leaves material doubt about the accused’s connection to the alleged illegal use, the benefit of that doubt warrants acquittal

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the CrPC

The judgment cites no precedents.

The Court found that the inspection evidence was not reliably corroborated: one member of the inspection team turned hostile, the investigating officer confirmed there were no independent witnesses, and the appellant’s alleged refusal to sign the inspection documents was not independently supported

The prosecution also failed to establish that the field where the pump was allegedly operated belonged to or was possessed by the appellant, and only a three-metre length of wire—not the pump—was seized

These deficiencies left the appellant’s connection to the alleged unauthorised use unproved beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court had not properly assessed them

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt

The trial court record was directed to be returned with a copy of the judgment for compliance and necessary action