Madhya Pradesh High Court acquits man, calls trial court conviction baseless

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the life sentence of a murder accused, saying the trial court based its conviction on “cryptic and non-existent grounds” and failed to handle the case with due care.

A division bench of Justices Vivek Agrawal and Avanindra Kumar Singh acquitted Lotan Lodhi of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and of an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Lodhi remains in jail, according to the report. The bench also said the matter should be placed before the acting Madhya Pradesh chief justice for an appropriate decision.

“

We are constrained to observe that learned trial court has failed to discharge its duties with due care and diligence.

The case arose after Munnalal Ahirwar was found dead on March 22, 2014. Police arrested Lodhi following a complaint from the deceased man’s nephew. The high court found the nephew’s testimony cryptic and inconsistent. He said Ahirwar had been sitting with Lodhi and gave him ₹100 to buy liquor, but the shop was closed. The two men later went toward Halle’s house, and Ahirwar was found dead the next morning. In cross-examination, the nephew acknowledged that Ahirwar and Lodhi had not been closely related.

“

The judgment passed by trial court in May 2025, the conviction having been founded on cryptic and non-existent grounds cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Prosecutors also relied on the recovery of three ₹100 notes and a mobile handset, as well as call records showing communication between the two men. But the court said there was no proof that the seized SIM card had been used in the recovered handset, and no purchase bill or identification linked the phone to Ahirwar.

The high court further noted that the trial judgment wrongly said human blood had been found on Lodhi’s clothing. The forensic report showed no human blood on his clothes, while blood was found only on Ahirwar’s. The bench concluded that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and that the conviction could not stand in law.

“

The conviction recorded by the trial court, based on erroneous findings and incomplete circumstances, was therefore unsustainable in law.