Appeal
The appellant, Arjun Jani @ Tuntun, has filed this criminal appeal arising from Special Leave to challenge the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa, which rejected the application for condonation of delay of 3,157 days and consequently dismissed the jail criminal appeal preferred against the trial court’s judgment convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment [paragraphs 1, 2].
Factual matrix
The factual matrix indicates that an incident occurred on December 20, 2003, at around 6:00 PM, where the deceased was allegedly assaulted and killed, leading to the registration of a First Information Report based on the statement of the sole eyewitness, who claimed to have seen the accused inflicting injuries with a sharp weapon. The appellant was apprehended, subjected to trial, and subsequently convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment, after which a jail appeal filed through prison authorities faced an extraordinary procedural delay of 3,157 days before being summarily dismissed by the High Court on grounds of limitation, leaving the convict incarcerated for over 22 years [paragraphs 2, 4, 5].
Arguments on behalf of the parties
The core legal argument raised by the appellant emphasizes that the High Court erred gravely in dismissing the criminal appeal solely on the ground of delay without examining the profound merits of the case, especially when a poor and unrepresented prisoner languished in jail for over two decades due to systemic institutional apathy and lack of proper legal aid. Conversely, the respondent-State supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the existence of an eyewitness account and the presence of incriminating circumstances, contending that the severe delay in pursuing the appeal justified its rejection [paragraphs 2, 3, 10].
Important paragraphs
PW3 is the eye witness to the incident but fled to PW4’s house but not clear she informed the incident to PW4 or not
9. PW3, the eyewitness spoke of having seen the accused striking the head of Ratanai residing in the locality and tried to intercede but when threatened by the accused, fled in fear to the house of PW4. There is no clarity as to whether she informed the gruesome incident she witnessed, immediately to PW4 or not. Next day morning, PW3 on returning to her house found some villagers gathered at the alleged scene of crime. PW7 says that she went to a tea shop in the morning nearby, recited the incident and together with others came back to the crime scene. She then found, the bodies of Kamala and Sonbari lying at the scene of occurrence, for the first time and was then made aware of two other deaths having occurred on the same night, all of them women. PW3 in cross examination admitted that her husband was in the house on that night and later, said that he had gone out after dinner.
Corroboration of eyewitness testimony is by way of res gestae
10. The prosecution went to trial with the eyewitness testimony and the corroboration by way of res gestae, as coming out from PWs 1 to 4 & 7, who have different versions as to how they came to hear the version of PW3 about the incident. In cross examination it was deposed that she witnessed the assault from within her house, peeping through a gap in the door at 1o’ clock in the night. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) denied the testimony of PW3 that she spoke of the occurrence to PW2, having been stated to him at the time of investigation. The testimony of PW4 that PW2 was trembling out of fear and she slept in her house also was not recorded in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC).
PW8 deposed that the police beat the accused to extract the confession
12. Relevant is also the fact that the I.O, PW13, who also carried out the inquest has not spoken of the scene of occurrence nor prepared a sketch, especially when three bodies of murdered victims were recovered. It is pertinent that PW13 does not have any explanation as to how he reached the accused and arrested him. But he speaks of a confession having been made by the accused after his arrest which definitely cannot be relied upon; inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Very significantly PW8, one of the witnesses of the recovery under Section 27, speaks of the police having beat the accused to extract the confession.
13. The recovery of MOI to MOIII; stones and a brick, from the accused, as spoken of by the I.O. was specifically rejected by the trial court, rightly so since there was nothing found in the stones recovered, connecting those to the murder. No blood stains were visibly seen, as deposed by the I.O, nor were any detected, on chemical examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory, which report though produced no positive result was spoken of by the I.O. Again, while the I.O spoke of the recovery of MoI to MOIII from the bushes near the scene of crime, as pointed out by the accused, PW1, the First Informant, PW3, the eyewitness, PW8 and PW9, the mahazar witnesses of the recovery, consistently said that MOI to MOIII were lying near the bodies, in plain view and with blood stains.
Appreciation of eyewitness is explained
14. 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 there are serious discrepancies raising a reasonable doubt as to the witnessing of the incident.
Testimony of the eyewitness is shaky and highly improbable and acquit the accused
17. As we 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. In any event, though the accused was alleged with three murders, he has been convicted for only one, of that witnessed by 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. As we noticed, the accused was released on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-, which shall stand cancelled.
Conclusion
18. 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.
Direction to the district administration
19. 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.
20. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 (Murder)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 161
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 25 (Confession to police officer not to be proved)
Party: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun versus State of Orissa - Criminal Appeal No. 3639 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7128 of 2026) - 2026 INSC 802 - August 4, 2026, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
