Non-inclusion of independent witnesses and failure to seize material evidence vitiates prosecution for electricity theft.

The appellant (complainant), a Junior Engineer at MP Pre-University Company Ltd., filed a complaint alleging that on 05.09.2014, the respondent was caught stealing electricity in Village Pali by directly connecting a 5-HP grinder to the LT line

A panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared, and a financial loss of ₹95,009 was assessed

Following a trial where the prosecution examined two departmental witnesses, the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bijawar, acquitted the respondent on 05.07.2022

The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing that the testimonies of the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were sufficient for conviction despite the lack of independent witnesses

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence despite the testimonies of departmental witnesses

2. Whether the non-inclusion of independent witnesses and failure to seize material evidence creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the punishment for theft of electricity

Bapupuri v. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (2009) regarding the necessity of credible evidence in electricity theft cases

The principles of appellate jurisdiction in acquittals as summarized in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court's view is "possible," even if an alternative view exists

PW-2 (Rajbhan Patel) admitted during cross-examination that he signed the panchnama at the instance of his superior (PW-1) and could not recall where it was prepared, casting doubt on the document's veracity

While the alleged theft occurred in a dense residential area, no independent witnesses were joined or even notified, which PW-1 admitted

The court noted that the 5-HP motor allegedly used for the theft was never seized, and no documents proving the respondent's title or possession of the premises were collected

Applying the "two views" doctrine, the court reasoned that the trial court's suspicion of the prosecution's narrative was a reasonable and possible view, thus precluding appellate interference

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