Back
Supreme Court Acquits Arjun Jani After 22 Years, Urges Liberal in Convict Appeals
In a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of liberty over procedural technicalities, the on , acquitted Arjun Jani @ Tuntun, who had spent 22 years behind bars for a triple murder conviction. The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, not only set aside the conviction but also directed the State authorities to aid in his rehabilitation. The decision came after the Court found the sole "highly improbable" and urged constitutional courts to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays in appeals filed by convicts.
A Decade-Long Fight for Justice
Arjun Jani was convicted under by a trial court in Odisha for the murder of three women—Kamala, Sonbari, and Ratanai—allegedly bludgeoned to death with stones in a residential locality. His conviction rested almost entirely on the testimony of PW3, a neighbor who claimed to have witnessed one of the murders from a gap in her door at midnight. However, the trial court convicted him only for the murder of Ratanai, the one witnessed by PW3.
Jani filed a
through legal services, but the
dismissed it due to a delay of 3157 days. By then, he had already served 12 years in prison. The Supreme Court, however, deemed this delay condonable, noting that
"access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of our society."
A Coordinate Bench had earlier granted him
, recognizing that he had undergone nearly 22 years of incarceration.
When the Eyewitness Account Falls Apart
The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of PW3, which the Court found riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. PW3 claimed to have seen the accused strike Ratanai, but she did not report the other two murders she allegedly knew about. She fled to PW4's house without seeing the two bodies that were supposedly lying on her path. The investigating officer even denied that PW3 had mentioned the incident to PW2 during the investigation. Additionally, PW8 testified that the police beat the accused to extract a confession—an under .
The recovery of the alleged murder weapons—stones and a brick—was equally dubious. The investigating officer claimed they were found at the accused's pointing out, but witnesses consistently stated the items were lying near the bodies in plain view, with blood stains that were never confirmed by forensic examination. The Court observed that the "sole testimony" of the eyewitness
"is found to be highly improbable"
and does not
"lead to a definite conclusion that the accused murdered the three women."
A Call for Proactive Justice
The judgment went beyond acquitting Jani, addressing systemic failures that delayed his appeal. The
's rejection of the
application was termed
"deeply dismayed and equally perturbed"
by the Bench. The Court emphasized that when liberty is at stake, courts should not merely be liberal but "pro-active" in condoning delay, however large, when a convict knocks at the door of a
.
The judgment also highlighted repeated rejections of Jani's
applications—six times—citing
"apprehension of law and order situation"
as the reason. The Court refused to accept this as a valid ground, asserting that such apprehension
"cannot be a cause, not to judiciously exercise the power of
."
It noted that both the 2000 and 2022
policies were beneficial to Jani, yet the
had postponed reconsideration by a year.
Key Observations
"Access to justice still eludes the marginalized sections of our society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from amongst them."
"The , while declining to condone the delay, ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner was already undergoing sentence past 12 years. The ought to have also considered that it was an appeal through jail."
"The 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."
"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 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 Road Ahead
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted Arjun Jani. His bond was cancelled, and the Court directed the , to attempt rehabilitation or resettlement of the appellant, with the District Collector's administration providing assistance. This ruling reinforces the principle that no person should languish in prison on the strength of evidence that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. It also sends a clear message to lower courts and High Courts: procedural rigidity must never overshadow the fundamental right to liberty, especially for those who have already paid a heavy price.
