Arjun Loni vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                              1                                  CRA-6020-2023
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 6020 of 2023
                                          (ARJUN LONI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

                                                      CRA No. 6414 of 2023
                                          (MANISH LONI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

                                                      CRA No. 8126 of 2023
                                        (KANDHILAL LONI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

                           Dated : 21-01-2026
                                 Shri Ram Prakash Yadav - Advocate for appellants Arjun Loni and
                           Kandhilal Loni.
                                 None for appellant Manish Loni.
                                 Shri Ajay Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

Heard Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants on I.A. No.30156/2024 and I.A. No.25936/2025, which are respectively second and first applications under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants Arjun Loni S/o Bhulai Loni and Kandhilal Loni S/o Rammilan Loni.

As nobody is appearing for appellant Manish Loni, perused I.A. No.10480/2023, which is the first application under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail to appellant Manish Loni S/o Shri Rajendra Loni.

The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.) in case No.SC ATR/15/2021, whereby each of the appellants stands convicted for offence under Section 302/120B of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

2 CRA-6020-2023 Act, 1989, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with a stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year in default of payment of fine amount. The appellants are also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months default of payment of fine amount.

Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has recorded conviction against the appellants only on the basis of the evidence of last seen given by PW-7 Lalan Prasad Kewat and PW-8 Awadhram Kewat, whereas the theory of last seen is not credible. There are good chances of success in the appeal. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellants and to release them on

bail.

Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, in his turn, opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is pointed out that PW-7 Lalan Prasad Kewat stated that at about 8:00 pm, he was alone at his house. His parents were residing in a different house which is in a different mohalla. He had gone to sleep. When he woke up, then he saw Kandhilal, Manish, Arjun and Jarni (Neeraj Loni) standing in his courtyard. This witness further stated that out of fear, he had run away to his parents house. At about 8:00 am, he had informed Pooran, father of deceased, about the incident, but in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief, this witness admitted that he had not informed anybody on that night. This

3 CRA-6020-2023 witness also admitted in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that when police personnel had visited his village, he had not informed any police personnel as to who had brought the dead body. In paragraph 8 of his cross- examination, this witness admitted that in his case diary statement (Ex.D-2), he had not stated that as to whose dead body was thrown by these four persons and as to whether he was alive or dead. However, a material contradiction is that this witness admitted that the house in which he had seen the incident, is in the name of his sister Savitri and the electricity bill is paid by Savitri. This witness also admitted that a case was pending against him at Kotma court. This witness had lodged a report against Kandhilal and Bahadur in regard to maarpeet. This witness admitted his enmity with Kandhilal and others on account of the fact that they had beaten him.

PW-8 Awadhram Kewat in paragraph 3 stated that at about 8:00 pm, he himself, Neeraj @ Jarni, Manish and Chandrabhan were sitting at his house. Chandrabhan was consuming Gudakhu. At that time, Pooran, father of deceased, was going towards Panchayat Bhawan for chowkidari. Then, this witness had asked Chandrabhan @ Lala to go home. He had asked others also to leave for their homes. Thereafter, Chandrabhan and others had gone to their houses. In the morning, this witness had gone to Aamadand. He stated that he had no information about the incident, but when he came back, Pooran informed him that Chandrabhan was murdered. This witness admitted that in his case diary statement (Ex.D-3), he had not narrated to the police that accused persons Neeraj @ Jarni and Manish were sitting in his house.

On the contrary, in Ex.D-3, he stated that at about 5:00 pm, Nagendra

4 CRA-6020-2023 Prajapati S/o Hiralal Prajapati, Bhikam Kewat S/o Raju Kewat, Deepak Loni S/o Nitin Loni, Nitin Loni, Doctor Malga, Bahadur Yadav came and started indulging in gambling. This witness had gone to his house. Then he stated that at the time of gambling, Chandrabhan Panika S/o Pooran Panika and Charanlal Jaiswal were also present. When father of this witness had scolded the peopled indulged in gambling, then they had run away. At 8:00 pm, when Pooran Panika was going towards Panchayat Bhawan to perform his duties as a Chowkidar, he had seen Chandrabhan standing near Teen Batti when Pooran asked him to go home. Thereafter, Chandrabhan was talking to somebody on mobile and when this witness asked as to whom he was talking, then Chandrabhan stated that he would not understand, then this witness had closed his door and gone to sleep.

Thus, it is evident that Chandrabhan was last seen alone talking on his mobile to somebody and he was not in the company of the accused persons. There is no call detail record available on record to show as to with whom Chandrabhan had conversation at about 8:00 pm on the fateful day. Hence, the testimony of PW-7 Lalan Prasad Kewat and PW-8 Awadhram Kewat as witnesses of last seen, is not credible.

However, as far as Kandhilal is concerned, there is recovery of the mobile of deceased Chandrabhan. That circumstance needs to be explained by Kandhilal as to how he came in possession of the mobile owned by Chandrabhan.

Therefore, for the present, we are of the opinion that appellants Arjun Loni and Manish Loni, who have been convicted only on the basis of theory

5 CRA-6020-2023 of last seen, can be given benefit of suspension of sentence as there are good chances of success in the appeal. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellants Arjun Loni and Manish Loni and to release them on bail. I.A.No.31056/2024 and I.A. No.10480/2023 are accordingly allowed and disposed of.

It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court on 30.03.2026 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court, which shall not be more than two times in a year, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon appellants Arjun Loni and Manish Loni shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.

So far as appellant Kandhilal is concerned, we do not find any reason to show indulgence.

At this stage, Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.25936/2025, which is the first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Kandhilal Loni.

Accordingly, I.A. No.25936/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. List the case for final hearing in Part-B of the cause list as per its turn and seniority.

6 CRA-6020-2023 We notify to appellant Manish Loni that his counsel was not present and there is no such adjustment for the said counsel.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) (HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE pp