Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manbodhram Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23728
1 MCRC-14698-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 18 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14698 of 2016
MANBODHRAM UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhanshu Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.S.Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 378(3) of CrPC has been filed against the
judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Mauganj, District Rewa (presided over by Shri Sanjeev Pandey) in S.T.
No.158/2015, whereby the respondent no.2/accused was acquitted of the offences
punishable under Section 304 Part II, in the alternative Section 304-A of the IPC.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 14.11.2014 at about 11:00 AM,
the complainant was informed that the deceased, Hemlal Upadhyay, while passing
near the field of the accused at Village Saratha, came into contact with a live
electric wire installed in the field and died due to electrocution. The incident was
reported to the police, and after investigation, it was found that the accused had
illegally fenced the field with live electric wires, leading to the death.
Consequently, a charge sheet was filed. The respondent No. 2/accused denied the
allegations and claimed false implication. However, the learned Trial Court, after
appreciating the evidence, acquitted him of the charges under Section 304 Part II,
alternatively Section 304-A IPC, vide judgment dated 29.01.2016. The appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 08-04-2026
19:32:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23728
2 MCRC-14698-2016
contends that the said acquittal is erroneous, illegal, and unjust, hence, this leave
to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment
dated 29.01.2016 is erroneous both in law and on facts. The learned Trial Court
gravely erred in acquitting the accused by disregarding the prosecution evidence
and adopting a hyper-technical approach instead of a justice-oriented one. It
overlooked the testimony of key witnesses like Yunus Ansari (PW-2), Sheshmani
Upadhyay (PW-3) and Babbu Ansari (PW-7) attributing the accident to the
accused, ignored that the field and electric wire belonged to him, and failed to
consider the Investigation Officer R.N. Bagri (PW-8) statement confirming the
deceased was found on the accused’s field. The Court wrongly held that the
prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Allowing the
impugned order to stand would deny fair justice and result in a gross miscarriage
of justice. Considering the prosecution evidence, the accused ought to have been
convicted. He further submitted that at-least respondent no.2/accused ought to
have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The
acquittal is perverse, contrary to law, and deserves to be set aside.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
and the material available on record.
5. It is well settled that while considering an application for grant of leave
to appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the findings of the
trial Court are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unjustified. If the view taken
by the trial Court is a possible and reasonable view, the same does not call for
interference.
6. In the present case, the trial Court has assigned plausible reasons for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 08-04-2026
19:32:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23728
3 MCRC-14698-2016
acquittal. The appreciation of evidence does not suffer from perversity or
illegality. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. It is a settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the one
favourable to the accused should be adopted. No perversity or illegality has been
pointed out in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tota Singh vs. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529 has
held that where two views are possible, the one taken by the trial Court leading to
acquittal should not be interfered with. The judgment notes in paragraphs 14 and
15 that the prosecution failed to prove its case, including the essential ingredients
of Section 304-A IPC. Consequently, the learned Trial Court rightly acquitted
respondent No.2 of the offence. In view of this, the Court finds no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment.
8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 08-04-2026
19:32:17