Mahendra Kumar Sonkar, a Patwari, was initially charged with multiple offenses, including corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal charges under the IPC. His wife, Mamta, faced similar allegations. However, while Mahendra was found guilty under Section 353, his wife was completely acquitted, highlighting a crucial discrepancy in the prosecution's case.

The origin of the conflict lay in a complaint by Babulal Ahirwar, who alleged irregularities in a construction project. Following this, Mahendra was tasked with investigating Ahirwar's claims. Upon determining the allegations were unfounded, Mahendra reportedly demanded a bribe from Ahirwar for the inquiry report, leading to his arrest in a police trap.

The core of the appeal revolved around the applicability of Section 353 of the IPC, which criminalizes the use of force against a public servant in the execution of their duties. The legal definition of "criminal force" under Section 350 necessitates intentional use of force without consent, aimed at committing an offense or causing fear or injury.

Testimonies from several witnesses, including Ahirwar and police officials, painted a picture of chaotic events during the attempted arrest. Witness accounts suggested that Mahendra's actions were more about resisting capture rather than an intent to obstruct justice. While there were minor injuries reported among the police officers involved, it remained unclear whether these resulted from any deliberate act of violence on Mahendra's part.

In reviewing the testimonies and medical evidence, the High Court found insufficient grounds to affirm the conviction. Key points included:

Witnesses described a scene of jostling and confusion rather than a clear assault.

There was a lack of evidence indicating that Mahendra used a weapon or caused intentional harm.

The prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of criminal force as defined in law.

Ultimately, the appeal led to a critical reevaluation of the evidence and the standards required for a conviction under Section 353 of the IPC. The High Court concluded that Mahendra's actions did not meet the threshold for assault or criminal force against public servants.

On these grounds, the earlier judgment was overturned, and Mahendra Kumar Sonkar was acquitted of the charges. The ruling underscores the importance of clear evidence in cases involving allegations of obstruction and the application of criminal law, affirming that intent and action must be distinctively proven in legal proceedings. This decision not only impacts Mahendra's life but also serves as a precedent in understanding the boundaries of lawful public conduct and the protections afforded to individuals under the IPC.