State Of Madhya Pradesh vs O.P. Dubey

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 269 and 270 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - Supply of contaminated water - Scientific evidence and chain of custody - Conflicting laboratory reports - Samples not collected in sterilized bottles and not sealed at the spot - Prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the samples and the specific responsibility of the accused - Findings of the Trial Court are plausible and do not warrant interference. (Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Appellate Court should not substitute its view for that of the Trial Court if the view taken is a possible one - Interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or wholly unreasonable, or when only one conclusion of guilt is possible based on the evidence. (Paras 14-19)

Facts of the case:
This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of a municipal officer charged with supplying contaminated drinking water. The prosecution relied on conflicting laboratory reports, where one report stated the water was fit for consumption while another stated it was unfit. Procedural lapses were noted regarding the collection, sealing, and custody of the water samples, and it was not established that the accused was solely responsible for the water supply.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove that water samples were collected in sterilized bottles or sealed immediately at the spot. The reports were contradictory, and the chain of custody was not established. Furthermore, no evidence was submitted to prove the specific duties and responsibilities of the accused that would make them solely responsible for the water supply. The Trial Court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt was reasonable.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or illegal, thereby warranting interference by the Appellate Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot overturn the order if the trial court's view is a plausible one based on the evidence, even if another view is possible. The failure to establish a proper chain of custody, the use of non-sterilized containers, and the existence of contradictory scientific reports render the prosecution's case doubtful and the acquittal sustainable.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against acquittal for offences under Sections 269, 270 IPC concerning supply of contaminated water. (Para 2 )

2. State contended ample evidence including lab reports proved guilt; accused argued procedural lapses and conflicting reports warranted acquittal. (Para 7 , 8 )

3. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld as trial court's plausible view not perverse. (Para 20 , 21 )

4. What is the scope of appellate court's interference in an appeal against acquittal?

Appellate court can only reverse if trial court's view is perverse or only one conclusion possible; a plausible view in favor of accused must be upheld. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )

5. What must the prosecution prove regarding collection and custody of a water sample?

Must prove sample collected in sterilized container, sealed at spot, kept in safe custody, and transmitted without tampering; failure creates doubt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )

6. How do contradictory expert reports affect the prosecution's case?

Conflicting lab reports on the same sample create reasonable doubt, especially when prosecution fails to explain contradictions or obtain a third opinion. (Para 10 , 12 )

7. What is the effect of procedural irregularities in sample handling?

Irregularities like unsterilized bottles and lack of sealing make scientific evidence unreliable and support acquittal. (Para 11 , 12 )

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.7.2022 passed in RCT No.300930/2015 (State of M.P. vs. O. P. Dubey) by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna (M.P.), whereby the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 269, 270 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that The prosecution case in brief is as follows, that the complainant Ram Lakhan Tripathi filed a complaint in court to the effect that he resides at Hariram Indrapuri, Ward No. 03, Panna, and is engaged in the profession of advocacy, and he has water connection No. 3640 from Municipal Council Panna, the bill for which he pays on time every month. The accused O.P. Dubey is posted as Chief Municipal Officer in Municipal Council Panna. The administration of the municipality vests in the Council. The accused is the principal executive of Municipal Council Panna; therefore all officers and employees of the Council are subordinate to him, and the executive powers related to the purpose of executing all works of the municipality are vested in him, , which, subject to the general control of the President, he is bound under the Municipal Act to supervise the finances and administration of the Council. The accused Mohanlal Kushwaha is the President of Municipal Council Panna; therefore, since the administration of the Council vests in him, he has control over the financial and executive matters of the Council, and in emergency cases, for the execution of any such work. He is bound by duty to take action in relation to it. Since the responsibility of supplying clean drinking water to the citizens in Panna city lies with the municipal administration, it is upon the accused persons. The duty and responsibility to arrange for the supply of drinking water is imposed on them by law. In this regard, the accused persons have administrative and financial powers. For the past one month continuously, the supply of drinking water that is being made in Panna is absolutely dirty, insect-laden, and muddy water, the sole reason for which is that without adding the required and appropriate quantity and without filtering the pond by putting necessary and suitable quantity of alum going and Nirpat Sagar, Lokpal Sagar and Dharamsagar from where water is being supplied, where people go towards Disha Maidan (Latin), cattle dung kept entering the water but they are being well aware about the aforesaid fact has supplied the water in a very carelessness manner, on these premises, the matter was preferred before the learned Trial Court which vide order dated 06.6.2015 directed to register criminal case pursuant thereto criminal case No.1186/2015 was registered under Section 269, 270 & 34 of IPC.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of JMFC, Panna.

4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charges against respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 of IPC, which he denied and claimed for trial.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, Ramlakhan Tripathi (PW-1), Shravan Kumar (PW-2), Lokesh Sharma (PW-3),Ashok Kumar (PW-4), Manish Kumar (PW-5), Subhash Kumar Khare (PW-6), R. S. Shukla (PW-7), Hariprasad Tyagi (PW-8), Brujmohan Jadia (PW-9), G.P. Tiwari (PW-10), Ramkishan (PW-11). In defense, appellant has examined himself. Prosecution placed Ex.P/1 to P/17 and Ex.D/1 to D/2, the documents on record.

6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 269, 270 of IPC. Hence, this ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
O.P. Dubey – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2105 of 2023
Decided On : 06-05-2026

An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous, especially when two reasonable views are possible and the trial court has adopted the view favorable to the accused.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of appellate court's interference in an appeal against acquittal?

5. What must the prosecution prove regarding collection and custody of a water sample?

6. How do contradictory expert reports affect the prosecution's case?

7. What is the effect of procedural irregularities in sample handling?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURRAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.The State Of Madhya Pradesh - AppellantVersus O.P. Dubey – Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 2105 of 2023Decided On : 06-05-2026

An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous, especially when two reasonable views are possible and the trial court has adopted the view favorable to the accused.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of appellate court's interference in an appeal against acquittal?

5. What must the prosecution prove regarding collection and custody of a water sample?

6. How do contradictory expert reports affect the prosecution's case?

7. What is the effect of procedural irregularities in sample handling?

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
O.P. Dubey – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2105 of 2023
Decided On : 06-05-2026