This criminal appeal arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking to condone a massive delay of 3,157 days (subsequently noted as 3,703 days) and the consequential dismissal of a ‘Jail Memo of Appeal’ by the High Court. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, having already suffered incarceration for 22 years by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed deep dismay over how marginalized individuals are denied timely access to justice, condoned the delay, examined the merits of the case, and ultimately set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant due to highly improbable, inconsistent, and shaky eyewitness testimony.
- Nature of Proceedings: Criminal appeal by special leave against the rejection of a jail appeal delay condonation application and the underlying conviction order.
- Factual & Procedural Background:
- The appellant was prosecuted for the murder of three women (Kamala, Sonbari, and Ratanai) who were bludgeoned to death with heavy blunt objects during the night.
- The trial court convicted the appellant for one of the murders based on the sole testimony of an alleged eyewitness (PW3), leading to a sentence of life imprisonment.
- After spending 12 years in prison, an appeal through jail was filed, which the High Court dismissed by refusing to condone the 3,157-day delay.
- Upon reaching the Supreme Court with the assistance of legal services, a Coordinate Bench condoned the delay, released the appellant on bail (noting his satisfactory 22-year prison conduct), and examined the merits.
- Supreme Court’s Observations on Delay and Access to Justice:
- Constitutional Courts must adopt a proactive, liberal approach to condoning delay—no matter how large—when an imprisoned convict knocks on the door seeking protection of their most valuable fundamental right: liberty.
- Marginalized sections of society continue to face barriers in accessing justice through jail appeals.
- Evidentiary Flaws and Flaws in Trial/High Court Evaluation:
- Shaky Eyewitness Testimony: The sole eyewitness (PW3) claimed to have witnessed only one murder through a gap in her door at midnight. Her testimony contained severe contradictions regarding whether she fled past the other two bodies without seeing them, and her timeline clashed with other witnesses.
- Inadmissible Confessions and Police Brutality: The Investigating Officer relied on a confession extracted via police torture (third-degree methods), which is entirely inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- Failed Recoveries: The recovery of weapons (stones and a brick) was rightly rejected by the trial court as they contained no visible or chemically detected bloodstains linking them to the crime, though police witnesses and mahazar witnesses contradicted each other regarding where the stones were found.
- Lack of Credibility: None of the co-inhabitants woke up despite three murders happening at night, and the prosecution failed to examine any family members or relatives of the deceased.
- Final Outcome:
- The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant, cancelling his bail bond.
- The Court remarked that 22 years of a person’s life had been erased without reliable evidence due to a failure of proper judicial evaluation.
- The District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, Odisha, along with the District Collector, was directed to assist in the rehabilitation and resettlement of the appellant.
2026 INSC 802
Arjun Jani Tuntun v. State of Orissa (D.O.J. 04.08.2026)
