Ownership Not Established, Accused Not Present, Seizure Unproven — Where Is the Crime? Calcutta High Court Quashes Theft of Electricity Charge

“In criminal law, suspicion—however strong—cannot replace proof. Conviction must rest on evidence that excludes all reasonable doubt, not on assumptions about wires and walls.” - In a significant reaffirmation of foundational criminal jurisprudence, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of Accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for alleged theft of electricity by illegal hooking, holding that the prosecution failed to prove ownership, presence, or any direct involvement of the appellant in the offence.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the entire trial was marred by procedural irregularities, absence of local witnesses, and a lack of conclusive linkage between the accused and the alleged crime, rendering the conviction unsustainable in law.

“Cardinal Principles of Criminal Law Cannot Be Short-Circuited”: High Court Criticises Trial Court for Shifting Burden on Accused

At the heart of the controversy was a raid conducted on January 20, 2003 by officials of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEB) and local police in Neturia village, District Purulia, where the appellant’s residence was suspected of illegally drawing power from a low-tension (LT) line following disconnection due to unpaid dues.

However, the prosecution’s case unravelled under judicial scrutiny:

“The entire evidence clearly manifests that the house or shop was not in the name of the appellant, no direct evidence of hooking against him is found, no local witness or the accused signed the seizure list, and the seizure items were never proved in court,” the Court observed in a meticulous analysis of the record.

“Ownership Not Established, Accused Not Present, Seizure Unproven — Where Is the Crime?”: HC Blasts Investigation and Prosecution

The High Court was particularly critical of the failure to establish that the raided premises belonged to the appellant. Though the electricity connection was once in the name of his deceased father Bankim Pandey, no document was produced to show that Harisadhan Pandey was the present occupant.

The Court noted that P.W.2, an official of WBSEB, admitted there was no paper or verification of house ownership, and P.W.3, a linesman in the raiding party, testified that the house belonged to “one Bankim Pandey”—but failed to confirm if Harisadhan resided there or was present at the time.

“The raid occurred in broad daylight, yet not a single local witness was examined or even cited. The seizure list was not signed by the accused or any local person. No eyewitness has confirmed the act of theft. Such a conviction cannot be upheld,” the Court held.

“Denial Under Section 313 CrPC Does Not Create Guilt Where Evidence Fails”: Trial Court Erred in Shifting Onus to Accused

The Trial Court had erroneously placed weight on the fact that the accused had denied the allegations during his Section 313 CrPC examination, and had not produced defence evidence. However, the High Court set the record straight:

“It is the settled principle of law that the burden lies entirely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An accused has the right to remain silent; the absence of defence evidence cannot justify conviction unless the prosecution proves guilt independently.”

The Court found that the seized items—a PVC wire, lamp holder, and bulb—were generic household items, not exclusive indicators of theft. Worse still, these items were not produced in court, and no label or identification was affixed to prove they were used for illegal hooking.

“Electricity Theft Must Be Proven, Not Presumed”: Court Sets Aside Conviction, Frees Accused

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that mere presence of disconnected wires, absence of power connection, or an old meter in the deceased father’s name does not suffice to implicate the son in a criminal offence.

“Suspicion, even if grave, is not a substitute for proof. The conviction is based on assumptions, procedural lapses, and absence of lawful evidence. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden,” the Court ruled.

Acquittal Ordered, Appeal Allowed

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia, and discharged the appellant from all bail obligations. The Court also directed that an urgent certified copy of the judgment be supplied.

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability must be founded on cogent, credible, and direct evidence, not merely on official narratives or procedural presumptions.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025