Supreme Court Acquits Man After 22 Years in Prison, Calls High Court a “Moot Spectator”

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran acquits a murder convict after 22 years, finding the sole eyewitness testimony shaky and highly improbable.

The Supreme Court on 4 August 2026 set aside the conviction of Arjun Jani @ Tuntun under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him after he had spent 22 years in prison. The Court, in a judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran and concurred in by Justice J. B. Pardiwala, found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on a single eyewitness whose testimony was “shaky and highly improbable” and that an inadmissible confession, allegedly extracted under third-degree methods, had shaped the entire investigation. The order also sharply rebuked the Orissa High Court for refusing to condone a delay of 3,157 days in a jail appeal filed by a convict already 12 years into a life sentence, describing the High Court's conduct as that of a “moot spectator.” The Court further directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to assist in the rehabilitation and resettlement of the now-acquitted appellant.

How a Jail Appeal Travelled 22 Years to Reach the Supreme Court

Arjun Jani was convicted by a trial court for the murders of three women—Kamala, Sonbari, and Ratanai—who were found bludgeoned to death with stones in a locality described in the depositions as having cluttered houses, no electricity, a nearby factory operating with deafening sound, and residents drawn from marginalised sections of society.

After conviction, a jail appeal was filed on his behalf. The Orissa High Court declined to condone a delay of 3,157 days and dismissed the jail memo of appeal without examining the merits. At the time of that dismissal, Arjun Jani had already undergone 12 years of incarceration. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court and a coordinate bench of this Court condoned the delay on 7 May 2026, he had served 22 years.

The coordinate bench—of which Justice J. B. Pardiwala was a member—termed the High Court's order “very disturbing” and observed that the very fact of an appeal filed through jail ought to have been sufficient for the High Court to take a practical and sympathetic view. That bench granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000, condoned the delay of 3,703 days (the figure as updated by the time of that order), and directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to prepare a representation seeking remission.

When the appeal came up on merits before the present bench, the Court also found that the application for remission had been rejected six times, the last rejection being on 19 September 2025. The rejection noted that both the 2000 remission policy and the 2022 policy were beneficial to Arjun Jani, and that after 22 years of actual imprisonment he was 45 years old. Yet the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons had recorded that the State Sentencing Review Board could reconsider the case only after one year from the last consideration under the applicable policy clause. Prior rejections had additionally cited apprehension of a law-and-order situation arising from local opposition to his release. The Court found that such opposition could not, in any circumstance, be a valid reason to decline the judicious exercise of the power of remission.

The Court's Concern About a Possible Pattern of Violence

Before examining the evidence on merits, the Court was troubled by the fact that three women had been killed in similar fashion—struck on the head and face with heavy blunt objects in a public road—on the same night. The Court summoned the Station House Officer of the jurisdictional police station to ascertain whether any serial killings of a like nature had been reported at the time the murders came to light. The SHO appeared and informed the Court that examination of records revealed no similar incident during the relevant period.

Why the Eyewitness Testimony Did Not Hold Up

The prosecution's case at trial rested on the eyewitness testimony of PW3, corroborated by the res gestae statements of PWs 1, 2, 4, and 7. The Court examined the depositions and found a series of serious discrepancies.

PW3 claimed to have witnessed, at about 1 o'clock at night, the accused striking the head of Ratanai, after which she fled in fear to the house of PW4. Her account of the route she took was, however, directly contradicted by her own statement: she said she had to pass Kamala's house to reach PW4's house, yet she did not see the bodies of Kamala and Sonbari lying there as she fled. She testified to witnessing only the murder of Ratanai, but PW7 stated that PW3 told him the next morning at a tea shop about all three murders in sequence—first Kamala, then Sonbari, then Ratanai. PW3's husband was reportedly home that night; she first said he was present, then said he had gone out after dinner.

PW4 neither asked why PW3 arrived trembling at midnight nor roused anyone despite three murders having occurred nearby. None of the relatives or co-inhabitants of the three deceased were examined, and no explanation was offered for why three women came out of their homes in the dead of night.

The Investigating Officer, PW13, conducted the inquest but prepared no scene-of-occurrence sketch despite three bodies being recovered. He gave no account of how he located and arrested the accused. He spoke of a confession made after arrest, which the Court held was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Significantly, PW8—a witness to the recovery under Section 27—deposed that the police beat the accused to extract the confession.

The recovery of the alleged murder weapons—stones and a brick, marked MOI to MOIII—was rejected by the trial court itself, since no blood stains were visible on them and the Forensic Science Laboratory report returned no positive result. There was also a direct inconsistency in the evidence: the Investigating Officer said the items were recovered from bushes near the scene as pointed out by the accused, while PW1, PW3, PW8, and PW9 consistently stated the stones were lying near the bodies in plain view, with blood stains.

The Court noted that an eyewitness conviction is not impermissible in law, but only where the testimony is “believable, credible, consistent with the other circumstances and inspires the confidence of the Court.” Here, it found the opposite. The testimony of PW3 was internally inconsistent and highly improbable. Though Arjun Jani was alleged with three murders, he was convicted for only one—that said to have been witnessed by PW3. The prosecution, the Court concluded, “leaves a lot to be desired” and there lingered a serious doubt as to the guilt finding entered by the trial court.

On Access to Justice for Incarcerated Persons

Before addressing the merits, the Court articulated a broader concern about how Constitutional Courts approach delay in appeals filed by convicted persons. The Court said that the approach should be not merely liberal but pro-active: courts must condone delay, however large, when a convict knocks at the door in appeal. A jail appeal in particular—filed without independent legal resources, from behind prison walls—ought by itself to invite a sympathetic reading of any delay.

The Court expressed deep dismay at the High Court's mechanical refusal to condone the delay when the appellant had already served 12 years and his only avenue was a jail memo. Liberty, the Court said, is the most valuable and fundamental of all rights, and delay in challenging its deprivation must be read in that context.

The judgment also recorded the post-acquittal picture starkly: three lives were snuffed out, a person taken into custody on mere suspicion had a confession extracted by third-degree methods, the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence properly, and the High Court added his case to the tally of disposals without engaging with it on merits. The cumulative result was 22 years erased from a person's life without reliable evidence.

Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and acquitted Arjun Jani @ Tuntun. The personal bond of Rs. 10,000 on which he had been released by the coordinate bench was cancelled.

The District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, State of Odisha was directed to attempt the rehabilitation or resettlement of the appellant. The District Administration, headed by the District Collector, was directed to assist in that effort. All pending applications stood disposed of.