The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who had spent nearly 22 years in incarceration, holding that his conviction for murder could not be sustained because the prosecution’s principal eyewitness account was shaky, improbable and riddled with serious inconsistencies. 

The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has strongly criticized the failure of the courts below to properly scrutinize the evidence, observing that the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in an individual losing 22 years of his life without reliable evidence establishing guilt. 

The Court began by expressing its deep dismay at the manner in which the matter had proceeded. It noted that an application seeking condonation of a delay of 3,157 days had been rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the jail appeal against the conviction.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The Court emphasized that the appellant had already undergone approximately 12 years of imprisonment when the earlier order was passed and had subsequently spent another decade in custody, taking the total period of incarceration to around 22 years. 

The judgment placed particular emphasis on the difficulties faced by prisoners belonging to marginalized sections in accessing justice. The Court observed that constitutional courts must introspect and adopt a liberal—and, more importantly, proactive—approach when dealing with delays in appeals against conviction and sentence.

According to the Court, the issue assumes particular importance because such appeals concern the most valuable fundamental right: personal liberty. The Court stressed that when a convict approaches the Court in appeal, the delay should not automatically become an insurmountable procedural barrier, particularly where the appeal is filed through jail or with legal-aid assistance. 

The Supreme Court noted that the appeal before it had been filed with the assistance of legal services after the appellant had spent 22 years in prison. The substantial delay had already been condoned by a Coordinate Bench by an order dated May 7, 2026.

That Bench had earlier found the approach of the High Court disturbing, particularly because the appellant had already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment and the appeal was a jail appeal.

The Court noted that these circumstances themselves warranted a practical and sympathetic approach so that the appellant received at least one opportunity to have his criminal appeal examined on merits. 

The Supreme Court also considered the appellant’s conduct during incarceration. A conduct certificate issued by the jail authorities recorded that his conduct and behaviour had been satisfactory. He maintained good relations with fellow prisoners and had not been punished for any jail offence.

The Coordinate Bench had earlier granted him bail on execution of a personal bond of ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. The District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, was also directed to prepare an appropriate representation seeking remission in accordance with the remission policy applicable at the relevant time or any subsequent beneficial policy. 

The case involved the deaths of three women—Kamala, Sonbari and Ratanai. The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter, directed the jurisdictional Station House Officer to appear before it because the circumstances raised concerns regarding whether the incident was part of a series of similar killings.

The Court noted that the alleged victims had been killed with stones in a public locality. However, the SHO informed the Court after examining police records that no similar incident had been reported at the relevant time. 

The Court also examined the appellant’s attempts to obtain remission. The State relied upon records showing that his application for remission had been rejected six times, the last rejection having taken place on September 19, 2025.

The record indicated that after 22 years of actual imprisonment, the appellant was 45 years old and, with remission, would have undergone 25 years of incarceration.

Significantly, the State’s own material recorded that both the 2000 remission policy and the 2022 policy were beneficial to the appellant with respect to premature release. However, the authorities had relied upon provisions requiring reconsideration by the State Sentencing Review Board only after one year from the previous consideration. 

The Supreme Court also rejected the proposition that apprehension of a law-and-order problem arising from local opposition could, by itself, justify refusing to exercise remission powers judiciously. 

The Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence deeply problematic.

The locality where the incident allegedly occurred consisted of clustered houses, lacked electricity and was situated near a factory operating with considerable noise. The victims and witnesses were residents of the same locality.

The prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of PW3 as an eyewitness, along with alleged corroboration from other witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found substantial inconsistencies concerning what PW3 had actually witnessed and what she subsequently told other witnesses. 

According to PW3, she allegedly witnessed the accused attacking Ratanai at around 1 a.m. by looking through a gap in her door. She claimed that she attempted to intervene but fled after being threatened.

However, the Court identified several difficulties in this account.

PW3 had allegedly witnessed only the attack on Ratanai, while another witness, PW7, stated that PW3 narrated the deaths of all three women the following morning.

The Court also noted that PW3’s account was difficult to reconcile with the physical circumstances of the locality. The path from PW3’s house to PW4’s house passed by the house of Kamala, yet PW3 did not report seeing the other bodies while fleeing during the night. 

The Court further found inconsistencies in the accounts of the witnesses concerning when and how PW3 disclosed the incident.

The Supreme Court found significant shortcomings in the investigation.

The investigating officer did not properly describe the scene of occurrence or prepare a sketch, despite the recovery of three bodies. The officer also did not satisfactorily explain how he reached the accused and arrested him.

The Court further noted that the investigating officer claimed that the accused had made a confession after arrest. Such a confession, however, was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

More significantly, one of the recovery witnesses stated that the police had beaten the accused to extract the confession. The Court therefore found no basis to rely upon the alleged confession.

The prosecution had also relied upon the recovery of stones and a brick allegedly connected with the crime.

However, the trial court had already rejected the alleged recovery as a basis for connecting the objects with the murders. The Supreme Court noted that no blood stains were visibly found on the objects and forensic examination also did not produce any positive result.

There was also a contradiction concerning where the objects were recovered. While the investigating officer claimed that they were recovered from bushes near the scene at the accused’s instance, several witnesses stated that the objects were lying near the bodies and were visible in plain sight. 

The Supreme Court clarified that a conviction can legally be based solely on eyewitness testimony. However, such testimony must satisfy the fundamental requirements of credibility, consistency and reliability and must inspire the confidence of the Court.

The Court held that this principle cannot justify sustaining a conviction where the eyewitness account contains serious discrepancies that generate a reasonable doubt about whether the witness could actually have observed the incident as claimed. 

In the present case, the Court found PW3’s account particularly difficult to accept.

The judgment highlighted that PW3 allegedly heard a sound around midnight, looked through a gap in her door and witnessed one murder before fleeing. Yet the prosecution alleged three murders that night. The Court found it significant that no one in the locality appeared to have been awakened despite the alleged occurrence of three murders.

It also noted the absence of evidence explaining why the three victims had come outside their respective houses during the night. Further, relatives or co-inhabitants of the deceased were not examined, nor was there evidence establishing that the women were living alone. 

The post-mortem evidence showed that the three women had sustained broadly similar injuries to their faces and heads caused by a heavy blunt object. Their deaths resulted from internal bleeding and brain injury.

However, the medical evidence did not independently establish that the appellant was responsible for those deaths. 

The Supreme Court therefore held that the medical evidence could not cure the fundamental deficiencies in the eyewitness account and other prosecution evidence.

After examining the entire evidentiary record, the Supreme Court concluded that the eyewitness testimony was “shaky and highly improbable.”

The Court held that the evidence did not lead to a definite conclusion that the appellant had murdered the three women. It further noted that, although the appellant had initially been alleged to have committed three murders, he had ultimately been convicted only in respect of the murder allegedly witnessed by PW3.

Given the serious doubts surrounding the prosecution case, the Court held that the conviction could not stand and set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitting the appellant. 

In one of the strongest observations in the judgment, the Supreme Court stated that three lives had been lost, while an individual had remained in custody for 22 years on the basis of evidence that did not reliably establish his guilt.

The Court particularly criticized the reliance on an inadmissible confession allegedly extracted through coercive methods and the failure of the trial court to properly evaluate the evidence.

It also observed that the High Court had remained a “moot spectator” while the matter contributed to the tally of disposed cases, ultimately resulting in 22 years of the appellant’s life being lost without reliable evidence. 

The Supreme Court issued directions aimed at helping the appellant rebuild his life after his prolonged incarceration.

The Court directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, Odisha, to attempt his rehabilitation or resettlement. The District Administration, headed by the District Collector, was directed to assist in the process. 

The Court also ordered that the personal bond of ₹10,000 executed by the appellant stand cancelled.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Farmers Can Claim Protection for Use of Protected Seeds U/S 39(1)(iv): Supreme Court