Chattisgarh High Court
Ramnath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:36933
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 189 of 2008
Judgment Reserved on : 02.04.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 29.07.2025
Ramnath, S/o Late Budhram, aged about 38 years, R/o Village
Mandragodi, Thana Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station - Sakti,
District Janjgir (Champa)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
(C A V Judgment)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 05.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Electricity Case No.05/2007
convicting the accused/appellant under Section 135-A of the
Electricity Act, 2003 & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year
with fine of Rs.2,000/-, plus default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.04.2005, Shri T. N. Biju
(PW-2), who was posted as Junior Engineer in Chhattisgarh
Electricity Board, went to village Mandaragudi along with his
subordinate staff for inspection. When the team reached the
house of accused/appellant, they saw that the electricity was
being used by hooking the main line. Thereafter, the house of
accused/appellant in which the electricity was used by hooking the
main line for huller mill, was investigated. The wire which was
being connected to use electricity was cut and spot map was
prepared. Wire, starter, motor, flour mill were seized from the
accused/appellant and spot panchanama was accordingly
prepared. Thereafter, a written report of the incident was made in
Police Station - Sakti and Crime No.112/05 was registered
against the accused/appellant and then the matter was
investigated. During the investigation, spot map was prepared.
The articles which was given in the custody of Buddheshwar
Prasad Kotwar at the time of incident, were seized. The seizure
memo, supurdnama, panchnama, map, calculation sheet
prepared at the time of proceedings were seized from lineman
Gandhiram Patel (PW-3). The statement of witnesses were
recorded and the accused/appellant was arrested. After
completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Section
379 IPC and 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 was
filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court.
3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charges
against accused/appellant under Section 135-A of the
Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
examined as many as 05 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in
the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
One defence witness Malik Ram Banjare (DW-1) has been
examined in the case.
5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and
considering the material available on record, convicted and
sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence,
this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad,
improper, incorrect and illegal. There is no prima-facie case to
connect the appellant in the crime in question. It has been
contended by learned counsel that another person was running
the huller mill and the mother of appellant had applied for
connection to run the huller mill but the employees of the
department demanded illegal gratification, complaint of which was
made by her mother, therefore, just to take revenge, the apellant
has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel further
submits that the ownership of huller mill is in question, no
documentary evidence has been brought by the prosecution in
this regard but the learned trial Court ignoring this aspect of the
matter, convicted the appellant, which is not sustainable. Learned
counsel further submits that the independent witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and the ingredient of
Section 135 of the Act are not fulfilled, as such, no offence is
made out against the appellant. There is no direct or indirect
evidence against the appellant to prove his complicity in the case.
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond
shadow of doubt. Therefore, the appellant deserves for acquittal
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated
06.11.2023 of this High Court passed in CRA No.408/2008
( Ramcharan Vs. State of C.G.)
In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the incident took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 20 years
back, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 13
days, by now the appellant is aged around 58 years and no useful
purpose would served in again sending him back to jail, therefore,
his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been
argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the
accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no
infirmity in the same.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned
trial Court framed charges under Section 135-A of the electricity
Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and
sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
10. Budheshwar Prakash (PW-1) is the village Kotwar. He has stated
that the police had seized one mini huller motor and floor mill
machine in his name vide Ex.P-2 and he admitted his signature on
Ex.P-2 on 'A to A' part. This witness has admitted that mini huller
and floor machine were given to him on supurdnama vide Ex.P-1
and he admitted his signature on 'A to A' part. In cross
examination, this witness has stated that the seized articles were
given to him on supurdnama but he was not told whose items it
were. The seized item was kept in the street. He cannot tell from
where and from whose house the items were seized. He has also
stated that after one week, the police had taken the articles from
his house and at that time he was not available in the house. The
appellant has one brother namely Ramcharan, and both the
brothers reside separately. The mother of appellant also reside
separately.
11. T.M. Biju (PW-2) is the Jr. Engineer posted in the Chhattisgarh
Electricity Board, Raipur. He has stated that on 25.04.2005, during
inspection he found that appellant Ramnath was running mini
huller and floor machine by hooking electricity wire from main line
illegally. He has also stated that he prepared panchanama vide
Ex.P-3 on the spot in presence of the witnesses. On the same
day, he seized 25 meter long blue white colour wire, starter board,
one main switch, huller motor vide Ex.P-4 in presence of the
witnesses. He has also stated that he handed over the seized
articles to village Kotwar on supurdnama vide Ex.P-1 as the
vehicle was not available to take the seized articles. He has also
stated that he had prepared spot map in presence of the
witnesses vide Ex.P-5. In cross-examination, this witness denied
this suggestion that the house from which the electric articles
were seized was not belonging to the appellant and he cannot tell
that the house from which the articles were seized was belonged
to the appellant as he had not collected the documents regarding
the ownership of the house of the appellant.
12. Gandhiram Patel (PW-3) is the lineman. He has supported the
proceeding carried out by PW-2 T. M. Biju and admitted his
signature on documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5). In cross-examination,
he has stated that he knew the appellant, they are two brothers
and he did not know that which brother got which room in the
partition.
13. Laxminarayan (PW-4) is the electrician. He has denied his
signature on supurdnama (Ex.P-1), panchnama (Ex.P-3), seizure
(Ex.P-4) and spot map (Ex.P-5) but he admitted his signature in
property seizure memo (Ex.P-2). The prosecution declared this
witness hostile and cross-examined him but he denied suggestion
of prosecution and only admitted his signature. This witness has
admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that the appellant has
two brothers.
14. Malik Ram Banjare (DW-1) has stated that the machine was
purchased by parents of the appellant and at that time, the
appellant and his brother were residing separately from their
parents. The machine was installed by appellant's father. He has
also stated that the mother of appellant had given an application
for electricity connection in the electricity department but the
electricity department did not provide electricity connection. In
cross-examination, this witness has stated that Noni Bai, mother
of appellant, is alive.
15. From the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is
clear that the appellant has two brothers, they were residing
separately in the same premises and the documents with regard
to ownership of house of the appellant have not been filed by the
prosecution. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of
the appellant, was required to establish the fact that the
place/house from where the alleged illegal electricity connection
was taken/used, belonged to the appellant. PW-2 T. M. Biju,
Junior Engineer, has admitted that during proceeding he did not
seize and file any ownership documents of the house of the
appellant. The investigating officer K.R. Koshle (PW-5) has also
not filed any documents with regard to ownership of house of the
appellant. From the evidence of Investigating Officer and other
prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is nothing on
record to suggest that the house from where the recovery of
articles were made belonged to the appellant and all the
prosecution witnesses have admitted this fact that the appellant
has two brothers and his mother had filed an application for
electricity connection, which was not provided, but the learned trial
Court while recording the finding of conviction did not appreciate
that the house from where the alleged recovery was effected and
electricity connection taken, was belonged to the appellant only
and he was in possession of that particular premises rather it has
come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the appellant
has two brothers and they were residing separately, and convicted
him only on the basis of seizure memo. As such, the finding of
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court being not
sustainable deserves to be set aside extending benefit of doubt.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled
against him extending benefit of doubt.
17. The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section
437-A Cr.P.C. (new section 481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is
directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form
No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months
along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special
Leave Petition against the instant judgment for grant of leave, the
aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted
to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information
and compliance.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
Digitally
signed by
pekde
VIJAY
BHARATRAO
PEKDE
