Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38124 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 146 of 2025 Appellant :- Naresh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 413 B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment and order dated 24.1.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Bulandshahar in Sessions Case No. 400218 of 2013, titled State Vs. Rajendra, arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2012, under Sections 304-A, 304-II I.P.C. and Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C.. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused had drawn an illegal electricity connection from his tube-well to his house, to cover a distance of approximately 350 meters for illegally running a fodder cutting machine etc. Learned counsel submits that the complainant's son on 12.7.2012 had gone to answer the call of nature and while passing through the agricultural land of the accused, he came in contact with the live electricity wire and got electrocuted. Learned counsel submits that the trial court has wrongly convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. etc. as the facts of the case would reveal that the death of the complainant's son is apparently culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Learned counsel submits that the case of the complainant is further supported by the witnesses of the electricity department i.e. P.W.-3 as well as the medical evidence. According to him, the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused under Section 304 I.P.C. calls for interference by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that through the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.1.2025, the accused-Rajendra has been convicted for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 304-A I.P.C. and for the said offences, the sentence of one year and two years, respectively has been imposed upon him, besides fine. According to the prosecution, the complainant's son had died of electrocution and the open electric wire set up by the accused had caused this occurrence, but the death of the victim is accidental in nature and cannot be construed as a homicidal death. The charge against the accused was framed on 5.8.2013 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 and later, on the basis of the evidence, alternative charge under Section 304-II I.P.C. was also farmed against the accused, and again the prosecution evidence was recorded. A perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.1.2025 would reveal that the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution evidence on record while holding that the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C. is not made out, as the death of the victim is a result of negligence on the part of the accused. The reasoning given by the trial court is based upon the proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. By now, it is settled law that if, the prosecution evidence on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favouring the accused is to be adopted, and the trial court has rightly applied this principle, as far as the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC is concerned. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused under Section 304-II I.P.C. Dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad