After 22 Years in Prison, Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Whose Appeal Was Thrown Out for Delay

Case at a glance: A man convicted of murder and sentenced to life had his jail appeal dismissed by the Orissa High Court because it was filed years late. After he had served about 22 years, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, examined the evidence, found the sole eyewitness “shaky and highly improbable”, and acquitted him, directing the legal services authority to help with his rehabilitation.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court refused to condone the delay in his jail appeal and dismissed it. By an order of 7 May 2026, a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court condoned the delay, described the High Court's order as very disturbing, released him on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and asked the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to pursue remission. His remission had been rejected six times, the last on 19 September 2025, though his jail conduct was satisfactory.

The case concerned the deaths of three women at night in a crowded locality with no electricity, near a noisy factory. The prosecution relied mainly on one eyewitness who said she saw the accused strike one of the women and then fled to a neighbour's house, along with a confession recorded after arrest and the recovery of stones and a brick.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a conviction for murder stand on an eyewitness account riddled with improbabilities, an inadmissible confession and recoveries that showed no blood?

Delay, Remission and a Fresh Look at the Evidence

The Court stressed that constitutional courts should take a pro-active approach to condoning delay in appeals against conviction, since liberty is at stake. It also observed that concern about public opinion or law and order cannot justify refusing remission.

On merits, the Court found the eyewitness's account inconsistent on the time of the incident, silent on the other deaths, and improbable in that she passed the bodies without seeing them. It noted that eyewitness evidence can sustain a conviction only if believable, “not when there are serious discrepancies raising a reasonable doubt as to the witnessing of the incident.” The confession was inadmissible under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, no scene sketch was prepared, the recovered articles showed no blood on chemical examination and the trial court had itself rejected them.

What the Court Actually Held

• The trial court judgment was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
• The personal bond of Rs 10,000 was cancelled.
• The DLSA, Koraput was directed to attempt the appellant's rehabilitation or resettlement, with the District Collector's help.
• The appeal was allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shows that refusing to condone delay in a conviction appeal can cause grave injustice to a long-serving prisoner.
• It reiterates that an eyewitness must be credible and consistent to sustain a conviction.
• It pairs acquittal with practical rehabilitation directions.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Seek condonation of delay in jail appeals with emphasis on liberty and time served.
• Test the eyewitness on timing, lighting and what she could plausibly have seen.

For Courts and Legal Aid

• Consider jail appeals on merits rather than rejecting them on delay alone.
• Use DLSAs to support remission and rehabilitation.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The judgment records a very long delay in filing the jail appeal, which the High Court refused to condone; the Supreme Court condoned it.

Her account was inconsistent on timing, did not mention the other deaths and was improbable given the circumstances.

He is acquitted, his bond is cancelled and the DLSA is to help with his rehabilitation.

Conclusion