The high court had refused to hear him on the technical ground and prolonged his stay in jail by 10 more years NEW DELHI: A trial court’s failure to evaluate the evidence properly and the Odisha High Court remaining a mute spectator resulted in 22 years being erased from a person’s life as he was wrongly convicted and his appeal was not heard by the high court. Finally, the Supreme Court has come to his rescue and acquitted him.It is a classic case where a poor litigant’s fight for justice is frustrated at the altar of the judiciary itself, when the court refused hearing on technical grounds. The poor convict had already spent 12 years in jail when he approached the high court. The high court refused to hear him on the technical ground that there was a delay in filing an appeal, and it prolonged his stay in jail by 10 more years before he was acquitted by the Supreme Court, which had to admit that “access to justice still eludes the marginalised sections of our society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from among them”.“We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed by the order which rejected an application seeking condonation of delay of 3,157 days and as a consequence dismissed the ‘Jail Memo of Appeal’ against the order of conviction under Section 302, with sentence imposed of life imprisonment where the convict had, at the time of the impugned order suffered incarceration of 12 years and now a further period of 10 years; a total of 22 years,” a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said.It said the high court ought to have also considered that it was an appeal through jail and the court ought to have taken a practical view, or rather a sympathetic view, of the matter and at least ought to have condoned the delay to give one opportunity to the petitioner to argue his criminal appeal on the merits.“When the three pillars of democracy consistently endeavour to bring legal aid to the doorsteps of every citizen, especially the poor…we…should sensitise ourselves in taking a liberal approach…Not a mere liberal approach but a pro-active one to condone delay, however large it is, when a convict knocks at the door of a Court…which in the present case raises some real concerns,” the bench said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesExamining the evidence, the court concluded that it was not a fit case of conviction on the basis of a sole eyewitness, which was not reliable and was shaky. It acquitted him in a triple murder case.“… 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…resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person’s life without any reliable evidence,” the court said.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’It’s My Moral Call To Be Here’: Author Nilotpal Mrinal Joins Ranchi Student ProtestMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg Apologises Over PM Modi Video Row, Admits Paid Content BoostingJharkhand Students Display Mark Sheets, Allege Irregularities In JPSC-JSSC Evaluation’Merit Can’t Beat Money’: Jharkhand Aspirant On Hunger Strike Demand Strong JPSC-JSSC Reforms’I’m A Farmer’s Son, I Can’t Buy Papers’: In JPSC-JSSC Exam Leak, Students Demand CBI Probe’56% Indian Vehicles Uninsured’: Supreme Court Calls For ‘Challans’, Urgent Enforcement Action’We Feel Cheated’: Jharkhand Student Protesters Voice Anger Over JPSC-JSSC Exam Row’If You Won’t Listen, Then Who Will?’: Jharkhand Student’s Msg To Hemant Soren Over JPSC-JSSC RowIndia Responds After Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along BorderJharkhand Mob Lynching: Rape Accused Beaten To Death, Police Probe POCSO Case And Mob Violence123PhotostoriesIndia named among the World’s 100 Best Cuisines: Here’s what makes it special5 must-have sneakers every wardrobe needs in 20265 timeless lessons from your grandparents that modern life forgot10 baby names inspired by dawn, sunset, and the skyBrain teaser optical illusion: You are among the top 1% if you stop all 25 animals hidden in the man’s face within 2 minutesWant Korean glass skin? These 5 daily habits make all the differenceThe Barack Obama blueprint: Healthy habits that help the former US President stay energetic and resilient at 658 ordinary moments that leave a lifelong impact on your childMalaika Arora’s 5 morning yoga poses every woman should try for better flexibility and joint healthKriti Sanon’s 3,000-crystal ivory Gaurav Gupta lehenga looks like fashion imagined beyond Earth123Hot PicksRBI MeetingGold Rate TodayStock Market TodayICMAI June 2026 toppers listTamil Nadu Budget SessionTN supplementary resultSpaceXUPI transactionsD Y PatilTop TrendingRBI MPC MeetingVande Matram StanzaUdhayanidhi StalinBritish ReturnsPM ModiTamil Nadu Budget Session 2026Air India FlightD Y Patil DeathTamil Nadu BudgetShradha Singh
NEW DELHI: A trial court’s failure to evaluate the evidence properly and the Odisha High Court remaining a mute spectator resulted in 22 years being erased from a person’s life as he was wrongly convicted and his appeal was not heard by the high court. Finally, the Supreme Court has come to his rescue and acquitted him.It is a classic case where a poor litigant’s fight for justice is frustrated at the altar of the judiciary itself, when the court refused hearing on technical grounds. The poor convict had already spent 12 years in jail when he approached the high court. The high court refused to hear him on the technical ground that there was a delay in filing an appeal, and it prolonged his stay in jail by 10 more years before he was acquitted by the Supreme Court, which had to admit that “access to justice still eludes the marginalised sections of our society and especially those convicted and imprisoned from among them”.“We are deeply dismayed, and equally perturbed by the order which rejected an application seeking condonation of delay of 3,157 days and as a consequence dismissed the ‘Jail Memo of Appeal’ against the order of conviction under Section 302, with sentence imposed of life imprisonment where the convict had, at the time of the impugned order suffered incarceration of 12 years and now a further period of 10 years; a total of 22 years,” a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said.It said the high court ought to have also considered that it was an appeal through jail and the court ought to have taken a practical view, or rather a sympathetic view, of the matter and at least ought to have condoned the delay to give one opportunity to the petitioner to argue his criminal appeal on the merits.“When the three pillars of democracy consistently endeavour to bring legal aid to the doorsteps of every citizen, especially the poor…we…should sensitise ourselves in taking a liberal approach…Not a mere liberal approach but a pro-active one to condone delay, however large it is, when a convict knocks at the door of a Court…which in the present case raises some real concerns,” the bench said.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Examining the evidence, the court concluded that it was not a fit case of conviction on the basis of a sole eyewitness, which was not reliable and was shaky. It acquitted him in a triple murder case.“… 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…resulting in 22 years being erased out of a person’s life without any reliable evidence,” the court said.
