In a significant judgment underscoring the importance of fair criminal trials, the Supreme Court on Tuesday acquitted an Odisha man who had spent nearly 22 years in prison after finding that his conviction for murder was based on unreliable evidence. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and expressed serious concern over the manner in which the trial and appeal had been handled.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the criminal appeal filed by Arjun Jani @ Tuntun, setting aside both the trial court's conviction and the High Court's order that had earlier refused to condone the delay in filing his jail appeal.
Background of the Case
The appellant had been convicted for the murder of one of three women who were found dead in the same locality in Odisha. His appeal before the High Court was dismissed solely because it was filed after a delay of more than 3,100 days. By then, he had already spent over 12 years in prison, and by the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, his incarceration had crossed 22 years.
The Supreme Court noted that the appeal had been filed through legal aid and observed that courts should adopt a proactive approach while dealing with delayed criminal appeals filed by prisoners, particularly when personal liberty is at stake.
Court's Observations
While examining the trial record, the Bench found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The conviction was based mainly on the testimony of a single eyewitness, but the Court found that her version did not remain consistent with other evidence or surrounding circumstances.
The judgment pointed out that the witness claimed to have seen only one assault despite three deaths occurring in the same area that night. Her account also differed from the statements of other prosecution witnesses regarding how and when she disclosed the incident. The investigating officer had not prepared a proper sketch of the crime scene, and there was no clear explanation regarding the arrest of the accused.
The Court further observed that the alleged confession made by the accused after arrest was legally inadmissible. It also noted testimony suggesting that police had used force while extracting the confession. Meanwhile, the recovery of stones and a brick allegedly linked to the crime failed to support the prosecution because forensic examination detected no bloodstains connecting those objects with the murders.
Emphasising the standard required in criminal cases, the Bench observed:
“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.”
The judges ultimately concluded that the eyewitness account was "shaky and highly improbable" and therefore could not safely sustain a conviction.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Arjun Jani @ Tuntun, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also cancelled the personal bond on which he had earlier been released and directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, along with the district administration, to assist in his rehabilitation and resettlement after his release.
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
