21 September 2026 Legal Updates

Supreme Court Acquits 4 Murder Convicts, Says Eyewitnesses Couldn't Have Identified Accused on Pitch-Dark Night

Case details

Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. State of Odisha (with connected appeal) (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047–1048 of 2010, with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale (authored by Varale, J.)

Facts of the case

On 14.05.2001 at about 4:00 PM, accused Narendra @ Narahari Behera came to the informant's (PW-3) house and abused the family, threatening to kill Dhruba Pradhan (“the deceased”).
At about 7:00 PM the same day, a group of accused persons armed with weapons (kata, tenta, stones, a saw) came to the informant's house searching for the deceased, threatened to kill him, and left toward Abhayapur.
While the deceased was travelling by motorcycle, he was intercepted at Agi Chhak by the accused persons; when he tried to flee, they forcibly caught him, dragged him into a paddy field, and assaulted him with a laterite stone, thenga, iron rod, and bhujali, causing his death. His motorcycle was thrown into a pond.
The FIR was lodged by PW-3 (Siba Prasad Pradhan) at 2:00 AM on 15.05.2001 (FIR No. 128 of 2001). Investigation led to a chargesheet against 18 accused; one died before trial, three were declared absconders (case split up), and 14 were committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges were framed under Sections 148, 506/149, and 302/149 IPC. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses; the defence examined 1 witness.
The Trial Court (judgment dated 28.01.2004) convicted 6 of the 14 accused (the present appellants) under Sections 148, 506, and 302/149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment with fine, while acquitting the remaining 8 on benefit of doubt.
On appeal, the Orissa High Court (judgment dated 06.05.2009) discarded the eyewitness testimony, holding that the assailants could not have been identified on a pitch-dark night merely by the sound of the assault. Nonetheless, it upheld the conviction of all six accused, holding that the prosecution had proved its case through circumstantial evidence instead.
During the pendency of the further appeal before the Supreme Court, two of the six convicted appellants (Upendra Sethi and Madhu Pradhan) passed away, and the appeal abated as to them; the remaining appeals were confined to the four surviving appellants.

Contentions of the appellants

Once the High Court itself rejected the eyewitnesses' testimony (PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 26), holding they could not have witnessed or identified the accused from a distance on a dark night, a conviction resting on this very evidence became unsustainable.
These witnesses were interested witnesses (brothers and sisters-in-law of the deceased), and their versions were materially contradictory — particularly PW-17's account, which contradicted the other eyewitnesses.
The High Court overlooked the reasonable possibility of alternative suspects: PW-3 and the Investigating Officer (PW-24) themselves testified that the deceased had a long history of criminal antecedents, was involved in 13 cases including rape and murder, and that many villagers bore a grudge against him — with around 200–250 people out searching for him that night, making false implication of the appellants plausible.
As regards appellant Haladhar Rout specifically, even the alleged motive (enmity) was not proved; in fact, the evidence of PW-3, PW-26, and witness Rama showed he was on cordial, visiting terms with the deceased's family — and motive is a crucial link the prosecution failed to establish, particularly in a case resting on circumstantial evidence.
The recovered articles (the deceased's chopped wrist, laterite stones, lathi) were recovered only from the spot itself, with no recovery traceable to any of the appellants.
Despite the prosecution's own case that nearly 300 persons were searching for the deceased for about three hours, no independent witness was examined — only interested family members — casting serious doubt on the prosecution's case.

Contentions of the respondent (State of Odisha)

The appeal arose from concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, and the prosecution had established the murder through an unbroken chain of circumstances, beginning with a consistently proved open threat at 4:00 PM on 14.05.2001.
The threat was carried into execution at 7:00 PM when the appellants, forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, conducted an organised search for the deceased; the interception and abduction at Agi Chhak was witnessed and corroborated by consistent testimony.
Medical and physical evidence corroborated the ocular version: the post-mortem confirmed a homicidal death consistent with a brutal assault, and recovery of a bamboo lathi, blood-stained earth, and the motorcycle from the pond ruled out false implication.
Under Section 149 IPC, once the common object of the unlawful assembly is established, it is unnecessary to prove the specific overt act of each individual appellant; the accused's failure to explain facts especially within their knowledge (what happened after they forcibly took the deceased away) added a further link in the chain.
Testimony of related witnesses (PW-3, PW-4) should not be discarded merely for being family members, since their depositions were natural, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances; parts of hostile witnesses' testimony (PW-14, PW-15) could still be relied upon where trustworthy.
Since the foundational facts were established beyond reasonable doubt and the courts below had arrived at concurrent findings of guilt, there was no ground to interfere with the sentence of life imprisonment.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court found considerable merit in the appellants' submissions and was unable to concur with the High Court's view. While the medical evidence established a homicidal death, the real question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' authorship of the crime — which the Court found it had failed to do.
All the alleged eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 26) were relatives of the deceased (brothers and sisters-in-law). Their testimony was internally inconsistent: PW-3's own FIR stated only PW-17 and PW-26 had witnessed the occurrence, while PW-4 claimed that PW-3 too was present and witnessed the incident — a material contradiction on who was actually present.
Relying on State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 1 and Tamilselvan v. State, (2008) 7 SCC 755 — both holding that identification of assailants from a distance at night (even in moonlight, or where only the assailants carried torches) is inherently unreliable — the Court agreed with the High Court's own finding that it was not possible for the witnesses to have identified the assailants on a pitch-dark night merely from the sound of the assault. The eyewitness testimony was accordingly unreliable.
Once the ocular evidence was discarded, the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, requiring the Court to apply the settled “panchsutra” test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence), along with the reiteration in Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 933 that circumstances “must or should” be established, not merely “may be” — suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Examining the eight circumstances relied upon by the High Court, the Court found that the circumstances of the initial threat, the armed search, and the identification at Agi Chhak all rested substantially on the same inconsistent relative-witnesses' depositions, and could not be treated as independently reliable.
The Court also noted unnatural conduct: PW-3, despite claiming to be an eyewitness, could not say which weapon was carried by which accused, and admitted he went home after the assault and returned only two hours later without alerting anyone — conduct inconsistent with a genuine eyewitness to a murder.
The theory that the deceased died from being struck with a 53 kg laterite stone was found unsupported: there was no evidence of who brought such a heavy stone or how, the stone itself was never recovered, and the medical officer (PW-18) confirmed that no such weapon was ever sent to him for opinion.
Applying the principle from Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 111 that each link in a chain of circumstantial evidence must be individually proved before the circumstances can collectively be said to form an unbroken chain pointing only to guilt, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete, consistent chain excluding every other hypothesis; the substantial gaps in the evidence created reasonable doubt, and where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

Held

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in affirming the appellants' conviction, and that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeals were allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2009 and the Trial Court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2004 were quashed and set aside. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Key legal principles established

Eyewitness identification of assailants at night, especially in the absence of adequate light or where only the assailants themselves carried a light source, is inherently unreliable and cannot safely found a conviction, following State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar and Tamilselvan v. State.
Once ocular evidence is discarded as unreliable, a conviction resting on circumstantial evidence must satisfy the “panchsutra” test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
Circumstances relied upon for conviction “must or should” be established, not merely “may be” established; however strong a suspicion, it cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt (Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi)).
Each individual link in a chain of circumstantial evidence must be independently and meticulously proved before the circumstances, taken collectively, can be treated as forming an unbroken chain consistent only with guilt (Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala).
Where the same set of related/interested witnesses forms the sole basis for multiple circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, internal inconsistencies in their testimony can undermine not just the ocular version but also the related circumstantial inferences drawn from it.
In criminal jurisprudence, where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail, and the benefit of doubt must be extended.