Confession Extracted By Third-Degree Methods, 22 Years Erased Out Of Accused’s Life: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal In Triple Murder Case

The Apex Court was dealing with a matter revolving around the murder of three women. The appeal was filed by the appellant with assistance from legal services after undergoing 22 years in prison, with a delay of 3703 days, which was condoned by a Coordinate Bench.

The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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.”

“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”, it added.

AOR Pragati Neekhra represented the Appellant while AOR Hitendra Nath Rath represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The scene of occurrence was a locality with cluttered houses, no electricity, a factory nearby which operated with deafening sound and inhabited by people from the marginalised sections. The deceased numbered three and were named Kamala, Sonbari & Ratanai, residing in the place, in separate houses. The witnesses were neighbouring residents. The eyewitness (PW3) 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. Another witness, PW7, stated that she 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.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution went to trial with the eyewitness testimony and the corroboration by way of res gestae, who had different versions as to how they came to hear the version of PW3 about the incident. Considering the statement of PW3 that from her house to go to the house of PW4 she has to pass Kamala’s house, in front of which the two other bodies were seen, the Bench stated, “This has to be juxtaposed with the fact that PW3 witnesses the murder of only Ratanai and not the others and while she was fleeing at night she did not see the other dead bodies lying on her way to PW4’s house.”

The Bench noticed that the Investigating Officer PW13, who also carried out the inquest, had not spoken of the scene of occurrence nor prepared a sketch, especially when three bodies of murdered victims were recovered. The Bench held that the recovery of objects such as stones and a brick from the accused, as spoken of by the Officer, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court, 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.”, it added.

The Bench found the testimony of the eyewitness to be shaky and highly improbable, not leading 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”, it held.

Thus, setting aside the judgment of the trial court, the Bench acquitted the accused while also ordering, “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.”

Cause Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 802)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Pragati Neekhra

Respondent: AOR Hitendra Nath Rath, Advocate Laxmi

Click here to read/download Judgment