Facts
The appellant was convicted under S.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. His jail appeal before the High Court was dismissed after refusal to condone a delay of 3157 days. By the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, the appellant had undergone approximately 22 years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, examined the evidence on merits, and found serious infirmities in the prosecution case based principally on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing a jail appeal against conviction.
(b) Whether the conviction under S.302 IPC could be sustained solely on the evidence of the alleged eyewitness.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court held that where liberty is at stake, constitutional courts must adopt a proactive and liberal approach in condoning delay, particularly in jail appeals filed by marginalized convicts. The High Court ought to have considered the appellant's prolonged incarceration and the nature of the jail appeal before rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
(b) The Court found the prosecution evidence riddled with inconsistencies. The eyewitness's version was improbable, materially contradicted by other witnesses and the investigating officer, and failed to satisfactorily explain crucial circumstances surrounding the three murders. Recovery evidence was unreliable, the alleged confession was inadmissible, and no forensic material connected the recovered objects with the offence.
(c) The Court reiterated that conviction may rest upon a solitary eyewitness only when such testimony is wholly reliable, credible, consistent with surrounding circumstances, and inspires confidence. The evidence in the present case failed to satisfy that standard and raised a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, cancelled his personal bond, and directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to facilitate his rehabilitation with assistance from the District Administration.
Ratio
A criminal conviction based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness can be sustained only where the testimony is wholly reliable, credible, consistent with the surrounding circumstances, and inspires confidence; where material discrepancies create reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Relevant Para
Para 14
“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.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 802
Decided on: 04 August 2026
Case Title: Arjun Jani @ Tuntun v. State of Orissa
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J. B. Pardiwala, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.