A delayed appeal was also an access-to-justice problem
The appellant had already spent years in custody when he sought to appeal through a jail memorandum. The High Court rejected his application to condone a delay of 3,157 days, ending the appeal without examining the conviction on its merits. The Supreme Court later considered the case after roughly 22 years of imprisonment. Its observations emphasise the real barriers facing marginalised prisoners who seek appellate review of a deprivation of liberty. (Paragraphs 1–3.)
The conviction had to stand on reliable evidence
The case concerned the deaths of three women, but the Court noted that the appellant had been convicted for one murder based on the account attributed to the eyewitness. It found that testimony shaky and highly improbable in the circumstances. Its acquittal was therefore an evidentiary decision, not an acquittal solely because the prisoner had served a long period or because the appeal was late. The Court expressed serious doubt about the finding of guilt. (Paragraphs 4–17.)
What the final order changed
The trial judgment was set aside and the appellant acquitted. The personal bond on which he had been released was cancelled. The District Legal Services Authority at Koraput was directed to attempt rehabilitation or resettlement, assisted by the district administration headed by the Collector. The wording matters: the judgment directs an effort at rehabilitation; it does not specify a damages award or a completed rehabilitation outcome. (Paragraphs 17–20.)
Why the delayed-appeal reasoning matters
The Court called for a proactive approach to condoning delay when prisoners challenge conviction and sentence, linking appellate access to liberty. That principle should be read alongside its assessment of this record. The judgment does not identify the perpetrator of the deaths, and an explainer should not imply that it does. It exposes how failure to evaluate evidence and failure to provide meaningful appellate access can compound one another. (Paragraphs 3 and 17–19.)
A question this judgment answers
Was acquittal granted simply because the appellant had spent 22 years in prison?
No. The Court found serious doubt in the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony, and set aside the conviction on that basis. (Paragraphs 17–18.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aryan Vaibhav Srivastava, Kartikay Aggarwal.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Hitendra Nath Rath, Ms. Laxmi.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3639 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2016 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in JCRLA No. 46 of 2015