The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while setting aside a murder conviction, has raised serious concerns regarding the suitability of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh, to deal with sensitive matters and directed that the matter be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for an appropriate decision. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 351]

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh noted that the Special Judge erroneously recorded facts concerning the FSL Report and had passed a conviction order based on "cryptic and non-existent grounds". 

"We are constrained to observe that learned Trial Court has failed to discharge its duties with due care and diligence. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that the manner in which the evidence and the material on record have been appreciated, raises serious concerns regarding the suitability of learned Trial Court, Special Judge, (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), District Damoh, to deal with sensitive matters of this nature. Accordingly, the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for taking appropriate call in this regard". 

The case arose from an appeal filed by the convicted man claiming that the entire prosecution's case was based upon circumstantial evidence with no direct eyewitness account. It was further argued that the three circumstances relied on by the Special Judge were not connected with one another and did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

The bench noted that the prosecution relied on the testimony of Chhotelal Ahirwar (prosecution witness 7), who was a relative of the deceased Lotan Lodhi. He stated that on March 22, 2024, the deceased was sitting with the appellant on the chabutra of his house. The deceased allegedly gave PW 7 money to buy liquor. After PW7 returned with liquor, the deceased, along with the appellant, proceeded towards the house of Halle. The next day, the deceased was found dead at the door of Lakhan Singh. 

The court noted inconsistencies in PW7's testimony, which contradicted the deceased's memorandum, wherein it was stated that PW7 had brought two quarters of liquor. The court also noted that his statement was recorded on May 4, 2024, after a considerable delay, whereas the incident occurred on 22/23 March, 2024. 

The court noted that the second circumstance relied on was the recovery of three currency notes from his house and the recovery of a mobile handset. However, there is no mention of the absence of a SIM card. It was also noted that the imei number was not mentioned. 

Additionally, it was found that Exhibit P24 was neither legible nor readable. Regarding call details, even though the appellant had called the deceased and vice versa. There was no material to indicate that the SIM in question was being used in the recovered mobile phone. 

Noting that there was no mobile phone purchase bill in the evidence, there was no material to connect the SIM card to the mobile handset of the appellant or any of his family members. 

The bench further noted that the Special Judge had erroneously recorded that human blood was found on the deceased's articles, whereas the FSL report clearly stated that the clothing of the deceased showed no sign of human blood. However, blood was found on the clothing of PW7. 

Relying on the principle of the complete chain of events, the bench relied on the case of Sharda Birdichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1984 AIR 1622] to emphasize that the circumstances must be proved in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events. 

After examining the testimony of PW7 and PW13, the court noted that the chain of events remained incomplete. Further, there was no evidence establishing that the recovered mobile phone belonged to the deceased. 

Thus, the bench held, "Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence connecting the recovered mobile handset with Munna Ahirwar and the SIM used for communication with the said handset, the alleged recovery does not establish the necessary link in the chain of circumstances. Consequently, when the chain of circumstances is incomplete, the conviction recorded by learned Trial Court, without proper appreciation of the material facts and evidence available on record, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law". 

The bench held that the conviction cannot be sustained as the Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence correctly. 

Accordingly, the bench set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal. 

Case Title: Lotan Lodhi v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-11041-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 351

For Appellant: Advocate Madan Singh

For State: Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma

Click here to read/download the Order