9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to conviction and sentence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.
Summary: The revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The prosecution alleged direct theft of electricity from Delhi Vidyut Board premises, leading to the registration of an FIR and subsequent trial. Despite the petitioner denying involvement and claiming false implication, he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). The petitioner's counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to implicate the petitioner, highlighting that key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The courts below allegedly misappreciated facts and wrongly convicted the petitioner based on unreliable testimonies. Witness testimonies, including those of PW-1 to PW-7, revealed inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged theft. The courts relied on witness statements that were questionable and failed to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, emphasized the importance of strong circumstantial evidence to prove the petitioner's guilt. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its allegations, leading to a manifest failure of justice. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The judgment referenced legal precedents emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the need for evidence to support findings of fact. In this case, the courts below overlooked crucial aspects of witness testimonies and failed to establish the petitioner's involvement in the alleged theft, warranting the intervention of the High Court to rectify the miscarriage of justice.
|
