SC Acquits Man After 22 Years, Slams Justice System for Erasing Liberty

New Delhi: In a scathing indictment of systemic failures, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who had spent 22 years in prison for murder, holding that his conviction rested on “highly improbable” eyewitness testimony and a flawed investigation. The apex court also lamented that access to justice continues to elude the marginalised, with delay and indifference erasing decades of liberty.

A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment on August 4. “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”, said Justice Chandran, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.

He said access to justice still eludes the marginalised sections of our society, especially those convicted and imprisoned from amongst them.

The bench observed that when the three pillars of democracy strive to deliver legal aid to every citizen—especially the poor and deprived—constitutional courts must introspect and adopt a more sensitive approach.

The bench observed that delay in filing appeals against convictions cannot be allowed to rob a person of the most fundamental right: liberty. It added that what is required is not just a liberal view, but a proactive one—condoning delay, however long, when a convict seeks justice through appeal. The bench said the present case starkly illustrates the concerns that arise when such sensitivity is absent.

The bench observed that three lives were snuffed out, having been bludgeoned to death; a person was 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”, said the bench.

Allowing the appeal filed by Arjun Jani, the bench said: “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.”

The bench said it 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. The bench said though the accused was alleged with three murders, he has been convicted for only one, witnessed by an eyewitness (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”, said the bench.

The deceased were three women—Kamala, Sonbari and Ratanai—who resided in separate houses in the area. The witnesses were also neighbouring residents. PW3, the eyewitness spoke of having seen the accused striking the head of Ratanai residing in the locality and tried to intercede but fled in fear to the house of PW4 when threatened by the accused. The bench said there is no clarity as to whether she informed PW4 of the gruesome incident she witnessed immediately. The next morning, PW3, on returning to her house, found some villagers gathered at the alleged scene of crime.

“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 serious discrepancies raise a reasonable doubt as to the witnessing of the incident”, said the bench.

Also Read

SC: States Can’t Cite Financial Burden To Oppose Raising Retirement Age Of Judicial Officers