1 Cri.Appln. 5247.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5247 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sitaram Bahu Rahane RESPONDENT ..... Shri B.J. Sonwane, APP for the applicant Shri V.Y. Bhide, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 7 th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. The respondent / accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 29/2006. State is seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the said Judgment and Order. 2 Cri.Appln. 5247.10 3. It was the case of the prosecution that, the respondent / accused had attached one wire to overhead line of MSEDCL, and he had carried the wire up to his house for committing theft of electricity. This wire, which was spread in the field, came in contact with Sara machine, and resulted in electrocution of one Dattatraya, employee of Sampat Rahane who was operating the machine. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, including electrical expert PW-5-Pramod Uttwal working in the office of Electrical Inspector of MSEDCL and Junior Engineer PW-6-Nilesh Madne. 4. There is an ample evidence of the fact that Dattatraya died due to electrocution. However, learned APP conceded that there is no eye witness account of the fact to answer how the electrocution took place or by what means and in what manner the electricity was being taken from the electric pole. 5. The learned trial Court duly considered the testimonies of witness and the submissions made of the rival parties. Only circumstantial evidence available was of seizure of the wire from the house of the accused. However, according to the trial Court, the circumstances revealed were not sufficient to prove the guilt of 3 Cri.Appln. 5247.10 the accused for the reasons recorded in para Nos. 31, 32 and 33 of the Judgment, which are quoted here-in-below : “ According to PW-6 Nilesh Madane he prepared spot verification report. Its xerox copy is Art. A. In this document there is no reference to production of wire by the accused and its seizure in the presence of panchas by Jr. Engr. Nilesh Madane. This circumstance clearly goes against the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the wire allegedly seized from the accused was around 200 ft. long and it was sufficient to illegally tap electricity from overhead line of MSEDCL upto the house of the accused. According to PW-1 Dnydev Bhimaji Rahane, Police Patil of Chandanpuri distance between the spot where dead body of Dattatraya was lying and house of the accused was more than 500 ft. As mentioned earlier, in spot panchanama Exh. 20 though it is mentioned that the house of the accused is situated to the east of the spot, distance between the spot and the house of the accused is not mentioned. In his cross examination PW-6 Nilesh Madne has admitted that he did not measure the distance between electric pole and the house of the accused. He has further admitted that he did not measure length of the wire either. Considering all these circumstances case of the prosecution that the accused was illegally tapping electricity for his house from overhead line by laying 4 Cri.Appln. 5247.10 wire in the field cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. “ 5. It is difficult to find fault with the reasons adopted by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. It calls for no interference. Leave is refused. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* September-11