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)

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 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