NAND RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above -named accused -appellant a consumer of electricity for agricultural purposes, has been convicted under Sections 333 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former count he has been sentenced to five years 5 rigorous imprisonment; under the second count, to one year's and six months rigorous imprisonment and under the third count also to the same imprisonment. The substantive sentences on each count were to run concurrently.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that in village Dhankoli, the accused -appellant has lands measuring 17 Bighas, and the fields are irrigated from a well. The accused appellant has electric connection on his well and as such he is a consumer of electricity of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB). There were same complaints about the low voltage, and therefore, on January 19, 1975, Assistant Engineer, O. P. Sharma, PW 8 who was then posted at Deedwana, along with Junior Engineer, Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1, Bhanwar Lal, PW 2, Aja Ram PW 3, helper, went in a jeep of the department to village -Dhankoli, When the party, headed by O. P. Sharma reached the well of the accused -appellant at about 12.00 noon, Hukmi Chand the son of accused -appellant ran away towards the 'Kothari', where the pumping set was installed. But, before Hukmi C(sic) and reached the 'Kothari' O. P. Sharma, PW 8 and others reached there and found that though the meter was stop but the motor and the pumping set were working. He also noticed that there was a minute whole on the side of meter and a wire was introduced through it, as a result of which, the motor and the pumping set were working, but, the consumption of the electricity was not being recorded in the meter. Hukmi Chand, the son of the accused -appellant ran away, and thereafter, the accused -appellant arrived there with a lathi in his hand It is alleged that the accused appellant gave a 'lathi' blow on the foot of O.P. Sharma, as a result of which, he received injury. When Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1 Intervened, he was also given beating. Farther, the case of the prosecution is that she accused -appellant did not allow O. P. Sharma and the others to proceed, and they were wrongly confined for about four hours. Thereafter, on the intervention of the brother of the accused O.P. Sharma and the other were allowed to proceed. On January 20, 1975 a report, Ex. P. 1, was lodged by O.P. Sharma in Police Station -D edwana. There a case was registered, and the investigation was set in motion. The injuries of O. P. Sharma, PW 8 and Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1, were examined by Dr. Laxman Singh, PW 7, who en examining O.P. Sharma found that there was a fracture of right fibule lower and swelling of right foot on dorsum and lower part of right leg and swelling of ring finget of the left hand. Injury No 1 was grievous while Nos 2 and 3 were simple. An X Ray was taken by the technician under the supervision of Dr. Laxman Singh. and it revealed a fracture. On examining Mohan Narain Mathur, the doctor found that there was 6' x 3' on lateral side of left leg in middle. After investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the accused and others. But, the others were acquitted, and the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The plea of the accused appellant was of bare denial. But, Hukmi Chand, the son of the accused, appellant came out with a plea that seeing the jeep he ran away, and the person belonging to the Electricity Department also chased him, and while so chasing, they fell on the ground and received injuries. The accused persons examined one Rikhma Ram, the brother of accused, in defence.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned advocate is that there is no material on record that the accused appellant know to the fact that Om Prakash and his companions were the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, and as such the case would not fall under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, but it would fall within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.