In a significant judgment addressing access to justice for marginalized convicts, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has set aside the murder conviction of Arjun Jani alias Tuntun and ordered his acquittal after he spent 22 years in prison. The apex court expressed deep dismay over the High Court of Orissa’s dismissal of his ‘Jail Memo of Appeal’ due to a 3,157-day delay, holding that courts must adopt a proactive approach to condone delay in jail appeals where fundamental personal liberty is involved.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a prosecution regarding the brutal murder of three women—Kamala, Sonbari, and Ratanai—who resided in separate houses in a locality characterized by cluttered dwellings, lack of electricity, and proximity to a noisy factory. The women were killed on the same night after suffering severe injuries to their faces and heads caused by heavy blunt objects.
The appellant, Arjun Jani, was arrested by the police on suspicion. Following trial, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically for the murder of Ratanai, and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the time the High Court of Orissa rejected his application seeking condonation of a 3,157-day delay in filing his jail appeal, Jani had already served 12 years of actual imprisonment. By the time his appeal reached the Supreme Court, he had been incarcerated for a total of 22 years.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court and Remission Issues
When the matter came before a Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court, the 3,703-day delay in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned on May 7, 2026. Highlighting the plight of the convict, the Coordinate Bench had observed:
“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 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.”
The apex court had granted bail to the appellant on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Koraput, to prepare a representation for premature release. Records produced by the State revealed that Jani’s application for remission had been rejected six times, most recently on September 19, 2025. Although state policies were applicable for premature release, rejections were repeatedly justified by local authorities on grounds of apprehended law and order issues, which the Supreme Court noted cannot operate as an impediment to the judicious exercise of remission powers.
To ascertain whether the murders were part of a pattern or psychological aberration, the Supreme Court also summoned the Station House Officer (SHO) of the jurisdictional police station, who confirmed that no serial killings or similar incidents were reported in the area around that time.
Arguments and Evaluation of Evidence
The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of an eyewitness, PW3, supported by alleged res gestae evidence from neighboring residents (PWs 1 to 4 and 7).
During the examination of the trial court record, the Supreme Court identified major discrepancies and incredulity in the prosecution’s evidence:
- Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony: PW3 claimed she saw the appellant strike Ratanai’s head at around 1:00 AM by peeping through a gap in her door. She then fled in fear to PW4’s house. However, while fleeing, PW3 passed Kamala’s house where the other two dead bodies were located but did not report seeing them at night. Furthermore, PW7 testified that PW3 told him the next morning about all three murders, creating contradictory versions of events.
- Inadmissible Confession and Coercion: The Investigating Officer (PW13) failed to prepare a spot sketch or explain how he traced and arrested the accused. While the IO relied on a confession made by the accused in custody, the Court noted it was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Crucially, a recovery witness (PW8) testified that the police beat the accused to extract the confession.
- Rejection of Weapon Recovery: The recovery of stones and a brick (MOI to MOIII) under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was rightly rejected by the trial court. The Forensic Science Laboratory detected no blood stains on the stones. Additionally, while the IO claimed to have recovered the stones from bushes upon disclosure by the accused, PW1, PW3, PW8, and PW9 consistently stated that the objects were lying in plain view near the bodies.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Evaluating the single eyewitness testimony, the Supreme Court emphasized that while conviction based on a sole eyewitness is permissible, the testimony must be credible, consistent, and inspire complete confidence.
Underscoring the systemic failures that deprived the appellant of his liberty, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the bench, made poignant observations regarding legal aid and judicial sensitivity:
“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.”
Commenting on the investigative lapses and procedural failures of the lower courts, the bench observed:
“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.”
Decision and Directions
Finding that the eyewitness testimony was shaky and highly improbable, the Supreme Court held that serious doubt remained regarding the trial court’s finding of guilt.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and acquitted Arjun Jani. The personal bond executed by the appellant was ordered to be cancelled.
In light of his long incarceration, the Court directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, State of Odisha, to undertake steps for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the appellant, with complete assistance from the District Administration headed by the District Collector.
Case Details:
Case Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7128 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: August 04, 2026
