Dismissed

Indian Oil Corporation through Ashish Saxena S/O Shri Suresh Chand Senior Operation Manager v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CRLLA/23/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal preferred by Indian Oil Corporation. The court refused to interfere with the trial court's order acquitting the respondent-accused of theft of crude oil from a pipeline, holding that evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy or direct involvement.

What did the court decide?

The leave to appeal was held devoid of merits and was dismissed; miscellaneous application disposed of.

Indian Oil Corporation through Ashish Saxena S/O… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 23/2019

¶3

Indian Oil Corporation Through Ashish Saxena S/o Shri Suresh Chand Senior Operation Manager, I.o.c. Station Ramsar Nasirabad Dist. Ajmer

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

¶7

Sahabuddin @ Sabu S/o Kalu, R/o Nangali Ps Masuda Dist. Ajmer

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

29/05/2023

¶13

Instant leave to appeal is preferred aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 01.12.2015 in Sessions Case No.33/2014(179/2014) arising out of FIR No.161/2014, P.S. Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer whereby respondent-accused was acquitted from charge under Sections 379, 285 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act, Section 15(2)(4) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Section 120B IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submitted that Ex.P6 report was filed by the officer of complainant-appellant with fact that underground crude transport pipeline was damaged and a valve fitted after drilling and welding with intention to

¶15

(2 of 5) [CRLLA-23/2019]

¶16

commit theft of crude oil from pipeline, wherein two tankers bearing no.UP-86-B-4568 and HR-55-A-5115 were lying in suspected position. The owners of tankers were Rahul Sharma and Sukhdev Singh with help of drivers and others have committed theft of crude oil from pipeline. He further submitted that after investigation sufficient materials were collected to implicate respondent-accused but learned trial court had not relied on those material available on record. He would further submitted that evidence in support of aforesaid material was led by prosecution and officers of complainant but learned trial court without proper consideration, had acquitted respondent-accused on nonconvincing grounds. He would further submitted that respondent no.2 was actively involved in damaging and theft of crude oil, as his involvement was proved from his presence on the spot supported by call logs but the trial court ignored the aforesaid evidence on technical grounds resulting into acquittal of respondent-accused and same is contrary to law. He further submitted that he did not received any instructions regarding filing of leave to appeal against order of acquittal dated 25.02.2021, subsequently passed by the same court with respect to other accused Subhash and Kuntesh @ Kultesh.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶18

A perusal of record clearly indicated that present respondentaccused was not named as accused in written report Ex.P6 and FIR Ex.P7 registered on 25.05.2014. Present respondent-accused was arrested on 31.08.2014 and his information under Section 27

¶19

(3 of 5) [CRLLA-23/2019]

¶20

of Evidence Act was recorded as Ex.P9 by PW17 Hari Prasad Somani. This Ex.P9 indicated that this respondent no.2 was acting under the instructions of Subhash Khanna, who was tried subsequent to present impugned judgment and then Subhash Khanna was acquitted on 25.02.2021 in Sessions Case No.39/2018(145/2015) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court Nasirabad, District Ajmer. Till now, no leave to appeal was preferred challenging the said order either by the complainant or by the State. When specifically enquired from learned counsel for the appellant, even this he submitted that till now there was no decision to file an appeal aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 25.02.2021, recorded subsequent to present matter.

¶21

Now, the question is whether there were sufficient evidence to prove charges as mentioned in FIR is concerned, wherein neither present respondent no.2 was named nor his specific act or involvement was alleged. There was no eye witness who ever seen present respondent no.2 on spot or in the vicinity in suspicious circumstances so as to conclude that there was some direct evidence to connect respondent no.2 with alleged act to damage the transportation pipeline and fitting of valve along with supplementary pipeline so as to commit theft of crude oil from said pipeline. The entire evidence clearly indicated that no recovery was effected from present respondent-accused so as to involve him in the matter. Moreover, no evidence during investigation was collected to establish circumstances of involvement of present respondent no.2.

¶22

(4 of 5) [CRLLA-23/2019]

¶23

Learned trial court does not find any evidence which was sufficient to prove that the respondent was involved in conspiracy to commit alleged crime. Moreover, after arrest of present respondent his information under Section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded but that was only for identification of site wherein crime was committed but no incriminating material was recovered from conscious possession of present respondent no.2 which could establish link between present respondent no.2 and alleged crime.

¶24

The evidence on record and the prosecution story on the basis of which present respondent no.2 was arrayed as accused was that his presence was found near by the place of incident from 18.05.2014 to 25.05.2014 but learned trial court noticed that the Sim, allegedly used by respondent-accused was in the name of Champa and she was not examined. Thus, link between Champa and present respondent was not established. It was further observed that no person from service provider mobile company was produced to prove certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. It was also not established that none of the vehicle recovered on spot or found in suspicious condition belongs to present respondent no.2.

¶25

Subsequent to present case, three more persons were tried and out of which one Rakesh died during trial and proceedings against him was abated but rest of two Subhash and Kuntesh @ Kultesh were acquitted by learned trial court. Herein, the allegation of prosecution are that present respondent-accused was acting under the instruction of Subhash.

¶26

(5 of 5) [CRLLA-23/2019]

¶27

Having considered the entire material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of acquittal recorded by learned trial court, therefore, this leave to appeal is devoid of merits, hence, same is dismissed.

¶28

Misc. application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶30

Arun/8

Indian Oil Corporation through Ashish Saxena S/O Shri Suresh Chand Senior Operation Manager v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation through Ashish Saxena S/O Shri Suresh Chand Senior Operation Manager v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar @ Ramsawroop S/O Poonia Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar Sharma Son of Sh. Shyamsunder Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Bajaj S/O Shri Satish Bajaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Son of Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Lal Son of Ramnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pokar Ram S/O Shri Bhana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan