'Moot Spectator': Supreme Court Tears Into High Court & Trial Court For 22-Year Wrongful Incarceration Based On Shaky Evidence

"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." Supreme Court of India, in a scathing judgment delivered on August 04, 2026, expressed deep dismay and perturbation over the dismissal of a 'Jail Memo of Appeal' against a conviction under Section 302 IPC after a delay of 3157 days, which led to a man spending 22 years in prison without reliable evidence.

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran critically observed the failure of both the trial court and the High Court in judiciously evaluating evidence and upholding the fundamental right to liberty.

The appellant, Arjun Jani @ Tuntun, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of three women and sentenced to life imprisonment. After suffering 12 years of incarceration, his 'Jail Memo of Appeal' was dismissed by the High Court due to an inordinate delay of 3157 days in filing. The present appeal reached the Supreme Court after a further 10 years, challenging the High Court's refusal to condone the delay, despite the appellant having spent a total of 22 years in prison.

The primary questions before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone a significant delay in filing a criminal appeal, thereby denying access to justice, and if the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable based on the evidence presented.

Access to Justice for the Marginalised

The Supreme Court began by lamenting that access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of society, especially those convicted and imprisoned. It emphasized that Constitutional Courts must adopt a "pro-active" approach to condone delay, "however large it is when a convict knocks at the door of a Court, in appeal."

High Court's Failure to Condone Delay

The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench had already condoned a delay of 3703 days in the special leave petition, observing that the High Court "ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner was already undergoing sentence past 12 years" and that it was an "appeal through jail," which itself warranted a sympathetic view. "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."

Remission Rejections and Policy

The bench also took note of the appellant's applications for remission, which were rejected six times, the last on September 19, 2025. It was recorded that both the 2000 and 2022 remission policies were beneficial to the petitioner for "Premature Release," yet his case was stalled by procedural requirements for reconsideration by the State Sentencing Review Board (SSRB).

Critique of Eyewitness Testimony (PW3)

Upon examining the merits, the Supreme Court found a "pall of incredulity" in the testimonies. The sole eyewitness, PW3, claimed to have seen the accused striking one of the deceased, Ratanai, at midnight. However, her testimony was fraught with inconsistencies. She did not immediately inform PW4, to whose house she fled, nor did she see the other two bodies on her way. PW3's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), did not record her speaking of the occurrence to PW2.

Discrepancies and Improbabilities

The Court highlighted further inconsistencies: PW3 witnessed only one murder, not the others, despite the bodies being in plain view on her escape route. Furthermore, no one was awakened despite three murders occurring at night, and there was no explanation for why the victims were out of their houses in the dead of night. "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."

Investigating Officer's Lapses and Inadmissible Confession

The Investigating Officer (I.O.), PW13, did not prepare a sketch of the scene of occurrence, despite three bodies being recovered. He offered no explanation for the accused's arrest but spoke of a confession, which is "definitely cannot be relied upon; inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." Significantly, PW8, a recovery witness, testified that the police beat the accused to extract the confession.

Flawed Recovery of Material Objects

The trial court had rightly rejected the I.O.'s testimony regarding the recovery of MOI to MOIII (stones and a brick) from the accused, as no blood stains were visibly seen or detected by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Moreover, PW1, PW3, PW8, and PW9 (mahazar witnesses) contradicted the I.O., stating the objects were found near the bodies in plain view, not pointed out by the accused from bushes.

Setting Aside the Conviction

The Supreme Court concluded that the testimony of the eyewitness was "shaky and highly improbable," failing to lead to a definite conclusion that the accused murdered the three women. It noted that the prosecution "leaves a lot to be desired" and a serious doubt lingered regarding the finding of guilt based solely on the eyewitness. The Court explicitly castigated the lower courts. "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."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting Arjun Jani @ Tuntun. The Court cancelled his personal bond and directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, Odisha, with assistance from the District Administration, to attempt rehabilitation or resettlement for the appellant, highlighting the profound human cost of judicial failures and evidentiary lapses.

Date of Decision: August 04, 2026