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. {Para 2}
3. 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
endeavor 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.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No…………..of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026)
Arjun Jani @ Tuntun Vs State of Orissa
Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 802
Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. 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
endeavor 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.
4. The above appeal filed with assistance from the legal
services, after undergoing 22 years in prison, is filed with a delay
of 3703 days, which has already been condoned by a Coordinate
Bench. The Coordinate Bench, in which one of us,
(J. B. Pardiwala, J.) was a member, by order dated 07.05.2026,
termed the impugned order to be very disturbing and noticed
thus: -
“7. The High Court, while declining to condone the
delay, ought to have considered the fact that the
petitioner was already undergoing sentence past 12
years. The High Court ought to have also considered
that it was an appeal through jail. This itself was
sufficient for the High Court to take a practical view
Page 3 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
or rather a sympathetic view of the matter and at least
ought to have condoned the delay so as to give one
opportunity to the petitioner to argue his criminal
appeal on merits. As on date, the petitioner has
undergone almost 22 years of sentence.”
5. The Conduct Certificate issued by the jail authorities
certified that during the period of confinement the conduct and
behavior of the appellant was satisfactory, he maintained good
relationship with co-prisoners and was at no time punished for
any jail offence. The Coordinate Bench released the appellant on
bail on his execution of personal bond of Rs.10,000/- to the
satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. The District Legal Services
Authority, Koraput, State of Odisha was also directed to prepare
an appropriate representation, seeking remission of sentence in
accordance with the remission policy prevailing at the time of the
commission of offence or any beneficial policy thereafter.
6. On the last date of hearing, since the case revealed the
murder of three women, which information led to the initiation of
criminal prosecution, we were apprehensive of whether the
deaths were the result of a psychological aberration. We hence
summoned the Station House Officer (SHO) of the jurisdictional
Police Station so as to understand whether there were any serial
Page 4 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
killings of like nature reported during the time when the instant
murders were brought to light, especially when the women were
alleged to have been killed with stones, smashing their heads in
a public road. The SHO was present today and he informed us that
on examination of records, there was no like incident reported at
the time when the subject incident came to light.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the State referred to
Annexure P4, in answer to a query regarding the remission
policy. It is seen from Annexure P4 that the application of the
appellant for remission was rejected six times, the last of which
was on 19.09.2025. The order noticed that after 22 years of actual
imprisonment, he is 45 years of age and with remission he would
have undergone 25 years of incarceration. It is specifically
recorded that “It is submitted here that both the Policy for the year
2000 and the current Policy (2022) are beneficial to the Petitioner
with regard to his Premature Release”. However, the Deputy I.G.
of Prisons lamented that as per Clause 6(4) of Law Department
Resolution dated 26.09.2000 as well as Clause 8(4) of the current
Policy, the case of the petitioner will be reconsidered by the State
Sentencing Review Board (SSRB) only after expiry of one year
Page 5 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
from the date of last consideration. The lament falls on deaf ears,
and the prior rejections were also due to apprehension of law and
order situation arising since the people of the locality were
against his release; which in every circumstance cannot be a
cause, not to judiciously exercise the power of remission.
8. Be that as it may, we looked into the merits of the matter and
from the testimonies we see a pall of incredulity. Before we
examine the evidence, we have to notice that the scene of
occurrence, as discernible from the depositions, was a locality;
with cluttered houses, no electricity, a factory nearby which
operates with deafening sound and inhabited by people from the
marginalized sections. The deceased were numbered three and
named Kamala, Sonbari & Ratanai, residing in the place, in
separate houses. The witnesses too were neighboring residents.
9. PW3, the eyewitness spoke of having seen the accused
striking the head of Ratanai residing in the locality and tried to
intercede but when threatened by the accused, fled in fear to the
house of PW4. There is no clarity as to whether she informed the
gruesome incident she witnessed, immediately to PW4 or not.
Next day morning, PW3 on returning to her house found some
Page 6 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
villagers gathered at the alleged scene of crime. PW7 says that
she went to a tea shop in the morning nearby, recited the incident
and together with others came back to the crime scene. She then
found, the bodies of Kamala and Sonbari lying at the scene of
occurrence, for the first time and was then made aware of two
other deaths having occurred on the same night, all of them
women. PW3 in cross examination admitted that her husband was
in the house on that night and later, said that he had gone out after
dinner.
10. The prosecution went to trial with the eyewitness testimony
and the corroboration by way of res gestae, as coming out from
PWs 1 to 4 & 7, who have different versions as to how they came
to hear the version of PW3 about the incident. In cross
examination it was deposed that she witnessed the assault from
within her house, peeping through a gap in the door at 1o’ clock
in the night. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) denied the testimony
of PW3 that she spoke of the occurrence to PW2, having been
stated to him at the time of investigation. The testimony of PW4
that PW2 was trembling out of fear and she slept in her house also
Page 7 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
was not recorded in her statement under Section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC).
11. There was an earlier incident deposed to, by PW3
corroborated by PWs 2,4, 7 & 9 of the accused, having roamed the
streets screaming that he wanted to ‘kill someone’; with no name
disclosed. PW3 also stated that the accused walked into her
house, took a tumbler and later went to Kamala’s house (one of the
deceased) with liquor. More shocking is the statement of PW3 that
from her house to go to PW4’s house she has to pass Kamala’s
house, in front of which the two other bodies were seen. This has
to be juxtaposed with the fact that PW3 witnesses the murder of
only Ratanai and not the others and while she was fleeing at night
she did not see the other dead bodies lying on her way to PW4’s
house.
12. Relevant is also the fact that the I.O, PW13, who also carried
out the inquest has not spoken of the scene of occurrence nor
prepared a sketch, especially when three bodies of murdered
victims were recovered. It is pertinent that PW13 does not have
any explanation as to how he reached the accused and arrested
him. But he speaks of a confession having been made by the
Page 8 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
accused after his arrest which definitely cannot be relied upon;
inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Very significantly PW8, one of the witnesses of the recovery
under Section 27, speaks of the police having beat the accused to
extract the confession.
13. The recovery of MOI to MOIII; stones and a brick, from the
accused, as spoken of by the I.O. was specifically rejected by the
trial court, rightly so since there was nothing found in the stones
recovered, connecting those to the murder. No blood stains were
visibly seen, as deposed by the I.O, nor were any detected, on
chemical examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory, which
report though produced no positive result was spoken of by the
I.O. Again, while the I.O spoke of the recovery of MoI to MOIII
from the bushes near the scene of crime, as pointed out by the
accused, PW1, the First Informant, PW3, the eyewitness, PW8 and
PW9, the mahazar witnesses of the recovery, consistently said that
MOI to MOIII were lying near the bodies, in plain view and with
blood stains.
14. The eyewitness testimony alone resulted in the conviction of
the accused, which is not impermissible, but only when the
Page 9 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
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.
15. PW3 speaks of having known the accused and the deceased
women and testified that at about 8/9 pm on the ill-fated night, the
accused was shouting ‘to kill somebody’. He is said to have gone
to her house and picked up a pot, when her husband was present.
At midnight, she got up hearing a sound and through a gap in the
door, witnessed one murder after which she fled. She did not
speak of the other murders, though PW7, who met her at the Tea
Shop, next day morning, speaks of PW3 having told him about
three murders, first Kamala, then Sonbari and lastly, Ratanai. PW4
did not ask why PW3 came to her house in the midnight despite
finding her to be trembling with fear. None were awakened in the
night despite three murders having occurred at night. The three
bodies were strewn around at the scene without any explanation
as to why the victims came out of the house in the dead of the
night. None of the relatives or co-inhabitants of the deceased
Page 10 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
were examined, nor was it brought out that they were residing
alone.
16. The result of the postmortem examination conducted by
PW5 as per his testimony reveals almost similar injuries having
been caused on the three women, on their face and on the head,
with heavy blunt object. They died of internal bleeding and brain
injury.
17. As we found, 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. In any event, though the
accused was alleged with three murders, he has been convicted
for only one, of that witnessed by PW3. We are of the opinion that
the prosecution leaves a lot to be desired and there lingers a
serious doubt in our minds as to the finding of guilt entered by the
trial court on the sole testimony of the eyewitness, which in the
given circumstances is found to be highly improbable. We hence
set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquit the accused.
As we noticed, the accused was released on a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/-, which shall stand cancelled.
Page 11 of 11
Crl. A @ SLP (Crl.) No.7128 of 2026
18. 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.
19. We deem it appropriate to direct 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.
20. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 04, 2026.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment