Supreme Court acquits murder convict who served 22 years in jail

Wait 5 sec.

The murder convict was accused of bludgeoning to death three women, he was convicted of murder of only one. (File Photo)THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday acquitted a murder convict who had spent 22 years in prison, saying that the eyewitness testimony based on which he was convicted “is shaky and highly improbable”.Although Arjun Jani alias Tuntun was accused of bludgeoning to death three women, he was convicted of murder of only one.Allowing his appeal challenging the Odisha High Court’s refusal to grant him relief, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said, “Three lives were snuffed out…, 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 mute 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 bench said, “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.”“As we found, the testimony of the eyewitness is shaky and highly improbable, it does not lead to a definite conclusion that the accused murdered the three women… 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. We hence set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquit the accused.”The court also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput, to attempt rehabilitation or resettlement of the appellant with the assistance of the District Administration.