The Supreme Court has acquitted a man who spent approximately 22 years behind bars after being convicted of murder on the basis of testimony that the Court described as shaky, highly improbable and incapable of inspiring judicial confidence.

“The conviction is based on an eyewitness whose testimony was shaky and highly improbable.” Supreme Court Bench

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran examined the conviction of Arjun Jani, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a woman named Ratanai in Odisha.

The case arose from the killings of three women, identified as Kamala, Sonbari and Ratanai, in Koraput. However, Jani was convicted primarily for the murder of Ratanai.

Conviction Based Mainly on One Eyewitness

The prosecution's case depended almost entirely on the statement of a single eyewitness. She claimed that at around 1:00 a.m., she saw Jani strike Ratanai on the head with a stone through a gap in her door.

She did not immediately inform the police about the incident. According to the record, the three deaths were disclosed the following morning. The trial court relied heavily on her statement, convicted Jani and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in her account. The time at which she allegedly disclosed the incident, as well as the identity of the person to whom she first reported it, changed across different statements.

The Court also questioned how she could have walked near the places where the bodies of Kamala and Sonbari were later found without noticing them.

“Eyewitness testimony alone may result in conviction, but only when it is believable, credible, consistent with surrounding circumstances and inspires the confidence of the Court.” Observation of the Supreme Court

High Court Refused to Condone Delay

Jani challenged the trial court judgment before the High Court, but his appeal was delayed by 3,157 days. The High Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal at the preliminary stage, even though he had already spent more than 12 years in prison.

His approach to the Supreme Court was also delayed by 3,703 days. The apex court nevertheless condoned the delay and described the High Court's earlier refusal as very disturbing.

“It is the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice is not denied to any person on technical grounds.” Supreme Court

The Bench decided that the case had to be examined on its merits rather than rejected merely because of procedural delay, particularly when the appellant had approached the court as a prisoner serving a life sentence.

Investigation Found to Be Seriously Defective

The Court noted that the investigation suffered from several serious defects. A prosecution witness stated that Jani had been beaten by the police to extract a confession. Such a confession made to the police could not legally be relied upon as evidence against him.

The investigating officer was also unable to satisfactorily explain why Jani had initially been treated as a suspect.

The stones alleged to have been used as murder weapons did not have visible bloodstains, and the forensic findings did not provide reliable support for the prosecution's version. Witnesses also gave contradictory accounts regarding the place from which the stones had been recovered.

The Court further observed that no member of the households or families of the three deceased women was examined as a witness. No person from the locality claimed to have heard the attacks, even though all three women had allegedly suffered severe blows to the head.

Remission Applications Rejected Six Times

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that Jani's applications for remission had been rejected on six occasions, including a rejection in September 2025.

According to the judgment, the State had acknowledged that both the remission policy applicable at the time of the offence and the later 2022 policy could support his claim.

The principal concern cited against his release was that local opposition might create a law-and-order problem. The Court held that such a concern was not sufficient by itself to deny the lawful consideration of remission.

Key Facts of the Case

• Arjun Jani was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.
• The case originated from Koraput district in Odisha.
• The prosecution relied mainly on one eyewitness.
• His High Court appeal was delayed by 3,157 days.
• His Supreme Court filing was delayed by 3,703 days.
• His remission requests were rejected six times.
• The Supreme Court found the investigation unreliable.
• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt

After reviewing the testimony, investigation and physical evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish Jani's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench stated that serious faults in the investigation, an inadmissible confession allegedly extracted through third-degree methods and the failure of the lower courts to properly examine the evidence had resulted in 22 years being erased from a person's life without reliable proof.

Final Order of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of the charges. It cancelled the bail bond executed by the appellant and directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to assist him with rehabilitation and resettlement in coordination with the District Collector.