Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict After 22 Years In Jail, Flags Collective Failure Of Criminal Justice System

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4) expressed displeasure with the collective failure of the criminal justice system, where the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence properly, and the High Court remained a mute spectator, leading to the convict spending cumulatively 22 years in jail and being subjected to third-degree torture in custody to make out a confession based on a mere suspicion.

In a strongly worded observation, the Bench remarked that the case reflected multiple institutional failures.

"Three lives were snuffed out, having been bludgeoned to death, a person taken into custody on mere suspicion from whom a confession,though not admissible was extracted employing third-degree methods, the trial court fails to evaluate the evidence properly and the High Court remains a moot spectator while adding to the tally of disposals; cumulatively resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person's life without any reliable evidence.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made the aforesaid observation while setting aside the Orissa High Court's order.

The Court opened its judgment by expressing anguish over the Orissa High Court's earlier refusal to condone a delay of 3,157 days in filing the jail appeal, despite the convict having already undergone 12 years of imprisonment at the time.

“We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed by the order which rejected an application seeking condonation of delay of 3157 days and as a consequence dismissed the 'Jail Memo of Appeal' against the order of conviction under Section 302, with sentence imposed of life imprisonment where the convict had, at the time of the impugned order suffered incarceration of 12 years and now a further period of 10 years; a total of 22 years.”, the Court observed, while also setting aside the conviction of the Appellant-convict, noting that his conviction was solely based on the shaky eyewitness testimony, making her testimony to be highly improbable to lead to the conviction, in absence of any other corroborative evidence.

The appellant was convicted for the murder of three women. However, the conviction was based solely on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, whose account the Court found to be highly improbable.

The case took a disturbing turn when the Orissa High Court dismissed the appellant's jail appeal on grounds of delay of 3157 days, without considering the merits of the case. By the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, the appellant had already suffered 22 years of incarceration.

Setting aside the High Court's order, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran called for a proactive approach from the constitutional courts to condone the delay when the convict files an appeal from jail.

“Access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of our society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from amongst them. When the three pillars of democracy consistently endeavour to bring legal aid to the doorsteps of every citizen, especially the poor, the needy and the deprived, we, in the Constitutional Courts should introspect to sensitize ourselves in taking a liberal approach insofar as delay occasioned in filing an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence, depriving a person, the most valuable and fundamental of all rights; liberty. Not a mere liberal approach but a pro-active one to condone delay, however large it is when a convict knocks at the door of a Court, in appeal, which in the present case raises some real concerns.”, the Court observed.

Moreover, on the merits of the case, the Court found the sole eyewitness to be unreliable for many instances such as improbable observation in night, different versions of other witnesses as to how they came to hear the version of PW3 about the incident, etc.

“The eyewitness testimony alone resulted in the conviction of the accused, which is not impermissible, but only when the testimony is believable, credible, consistent with the other circumstances and inspires the confidence of the Court and not when there are serious discrepancies raising a reasonable doubt as to the witnessing of the incident…the testimony of the eyewitness is shaky and highly improbable, it does not lead to a definite conclusion that the accused murdered the three women.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, acquitting the accused, with a direction to the “District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, State of Odisha to attempt rehabilitation or resettlement of the appellant for which the District Administration, headed by the District Collector shall assist.”

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Versus State of Orissa

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Aryan Vaibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR Ms. Laxmi, Adv.