JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

1. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A.No.26946/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.

3. Prayer is not opposed by the other side.

4. Accordingly, I.A.No.26946/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard.

6. This appeal is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Damoh in SCATR No.64/2024 convicting the appellant Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Prevention of Atrocities Act") and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and simple imprisonment for six months respectively with a further direction to run both the jail sentences concurrently.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no direct eye-witness account. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. All the three circumstances, which have been taken against the appellant, are not connected with each other. Hence, prayer is made to set aside the finding of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court and acquit the appellant from the charges levelled against him as mentioned in Paragraph No.6 of this judgment.

8. Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant.

9. The testimony of Chhotelal Ahirwar (PW-7), who is related to Munna Ahirwar (since deceased) claimed that Munna Ahirwar was his uncle, provides a very cryptic account. According to him, on 22.03.2024, his uncle, Munna Ahirwar, was sitting along with Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna on the Chabutara of his house. Thereafter, Munna Ahirwar gave him Rs.100/- and asked him to bring liquor. Chhotelal Ahirwar then went to the shop of Halle, however, since liquor was not available, he returned and handed the money back to his uncle Munna Ahirwar. Thereafter, the witness went inside the house to have his meals. According to him, Munna Ahirwar and Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna both proceeded towards the house of Halle. The witness then went to sleep and, on the following day, found that his uncle Munna Ahirwar was lying dead at the door of Lakhan Singh. Chhotelal Ahirwar (PW-7), in his cross-examination, admits that there was no intimate relationship between Munna Ahirwar and Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna.

10. The testimony of Chhotelal Ahirwar (PW-7) is contrary to the memorandum of Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna. It is mentioned in the memorandum of Lotan Lodhi @ Nanna that Chhotelal Ahirwar (PW-7) had brought two quarters of liquor from the shop of Halle whereas contrary to the aforesaid memorandum, Chhotelal Ahirwar (PW-7) states that the shop of Halle was closed. The statement of Chhotelal Ahirwar was recorded on 04.05.2024, whereas the incident occurred on 22/23.03.2024. Thus, there is a considerable delay in recording the statement of Chhotelal Ahirwar under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such delay.

11. The second circumstance relied upon against the appellant is recovery of three currency notes of Rs.100/- each from his house and the recovery of a mobile handset bearing IMEI Nos. and valued at Rs.5,000/-. There is no mention of the SIM number or of the absence of a SIM card in the mobile handset in the Consumer Application Form (Exhib