Summary: The Supreme Court, in Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047–1048 of 2010 along with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010, Neutral Citation No. 2026 INSC 1015, pronounced on September 18, 2026, set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed on the surviving appellants in a 2001 murder case from Odisha. The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and held that the alleged identification of the assailants on a pitch-dark night could not safely be relied upon. The prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased, and their testimonies contained significant inconsistencies regarding their presence and witnessing of the occurrence. The Court also examined the evidence concerning identification by torchlight and by the sound of the assault, with reference to State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar and Tamilselvan v. State. After discarding the ocular evidence, the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. Applying the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, including the five requirements stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, and the principle that strong suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that each circumstance had to be established beyond reasonable doubt and that all the circumstances, taken cumulatively, had to form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The Supreme Court therefore held that the surviving appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, allowed the appeals and set aside the Orissa High Court judgment dated May 6, 2009, as well as the Trial Court judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated January 28, 2004.
Murder Convictions Cannot Stand on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence: SC
Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Convictions
The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment titled Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc., passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047–1048 of 2010 along with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010 and reported as Neutral Citation No. 2026 INSC 1015, pronounced on September 18, 2026, set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed on the surviving appellants in a 2001 murder case from Odisha.
The Court held that a murder conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of unreliable eyewitness testimony and an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting the appellants with the death of the deceased.
The Court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and held that the alleged identification of the assailants on a pitch-dark night could not safely be relied upon. The alleged identification through voice and the claim that the witnesses heard the assault were also found insufficient after the Court concluded that the eyewitness evidence was unreliable.
The Court further noted that the alleged 53-kilogram laterite stone said to have caused the fatal injury had not been recovered. There was also no clear evidence explaining how the stone had been brought to the place of occurrence.
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The Court accordingly allowed the appeals, extended the benefit of doubt to the surviving appellants and set aside the Orissa High Court judgment dated May 6, 2009, as well as the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence dated January 28, 2004.
Background and Proceedings
At the outset, the judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale for a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh and himself records in paragraph 1:
“The present criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 84 of 2004. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants and upheld the order of the Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jajpur [hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] passed in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002, thereby convicting the Appellants under Sections 148, 506, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. The Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months.”
The factual background is briefly recorded in paragraph 2 as follows:
“The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.05.2001 at approximately 4:00 PM, accused Narendra @ Narahari Behera arrived at the house of the informant (PW-3) and abused the family members in obscene language, specifically threatening to kill Dhruba Pradhan [hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’]. Later that evening, at approximately 7:00 PM, a body of accused persons armed with deadly weapons including a kata, tenta, stones, and a saw, arrived at the informant’s house, searched for the deceased, and threatened to kill him before departing toward Abhayapur.”
The Court further recorded in paragraph 3:
“Around the same time, while the deceased was traveling by motorcycle, he was intercepted at Agi Chhak by the accused persons. When the deceased attempted to escape, the accused persons forcibly caught hold of him and lifted him into a nearby cultivable paddy field. Thereafter the accused persons assaulted the deceased by throwing laterite stone on his head and with thenga, iron rod, bhujali etc. as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injury. The accused persons threw the deceased’s motorcycle into the pond.”
In paragraph 4, the Court noted:
“The First Information Report came to be lodged at the instance of P.W. 3/Sri Siba Prasad Pradhan at 2:00 AM on 15.05.2001. On lodgment of report i.e., FIR No. 128 of 2001, the criminal machinery was set into motion and the investigating agency proceeded to the spot and seized various articles including chopped up right wrist of the deceased, laterite stone and lathi.”
The investigation culminated in the filing of a chargesheet against 18 accused persons. One accused died during the proceedings and the case against him abated, while the cases of three accused persons were split up after they were declared absconders. The remaining 14 accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The Trial Court framed charges against the 14 accused persons under Sections 148, 506 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Sessions Trial was registered as Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002.
On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated January 28, 2004, convicted six accused persons, including the appellants before the Supreme Court, under Sections 148, 506 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, while acquitting eight accused persons by extending to them the benefit of doubt.
The convicted accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000 each, with a further six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Since life imprisonment had been imposed for the principal offence, no separate sentence was awarded for the offences under Sections 148, 506 and 149 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s judgment, the convicted accused persons preferred two appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 84 of 2004 and 78 of 2004, before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
On reappreciation of the evidence, the High Court discarded the eyewitness testimony, holding that the persons who allegedly assaulted the deceased could not have been identified on a pitch-dark night merely by the sound of the assault. However, the High Court upheld the convictions on the ground that, although the prosecution had failed to prove the case by direct evidence, it had established the charges through circumstantial evidence.
During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, two of the convicted accused persons, namely Upendra Sethi and Madhu Pradhan, died. Consequently, the appeals abated insofar as they were concerned and remained confined to the surviving appellants.
Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence
The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR and developed during the trial, primarily rested on the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 26. The Court noted that all these witnesses were related to the deceased. PW-3 and PW-4 were brothers of the deceased, whereas PW-10, PW-11, PW-17 and PW-26 were his sisters-in-law.
The Supreme Court examined the testimony of these witnesses in detail. PW-3 stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. Significantly, in the FIR lodged by him, he stated that only PW-17 and PW-26 had witnessed the occurrence.
The testimony of PW-4, however, presented a materially different version. According to PW-4, he, along with PW-3, PW-10, PW-11, PW-17 and PW-26, had observed the accused persons at the time of the incident. Thus, while the version of PW-3 suggested that he was not an eyewitness, the testimony of PW-4 sought to show that PW-3 and the other prosecution witnesses were present and had witnessed the occurrence.
The Supreme Court held that this contradiction created a significant inconsistency in the prosecution case.
The Court further examined whether the witnesses could have identified the assailants on a pitch-dark night from a distance of approximately 60 cubits. In this context, it referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar (1979) 3 SCC 1, in which the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was found unreliable because it was considered improbable that the accused could have been identified even in moonlight.
The Court observed that, in Ashok Kumar, there was at least the availability of moonlight. In the present case, however, the evidence indicated that the incident occurred on a pitch-dark night and that the source of light was a torch allegedly carried by the accused persons themselves.
The High Court had also recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution witnesses could not have witnessed the occurrence on a pitch-dark night or identified the assailants merely by the sound of the assault. The Supreme Court found no basis to rely upon the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses in these circumstances.
The Court further considered the evidence of PW-4, who stated that the accused persons had focused torchlight on the deceased. In this regard, it referred to Tamilselvan v. State (2008) 7 SCC 755, wherein the Court held:
“9. Since it was the accused who allegedly carried torches, we find it difficult to believe how the prosecution witnesses could have identified the assailants. The position would have been different if the forest guards had been carrying torches and had been pointing them at the assailants, but here the position is just the reverse. In fact due to the torches of the assailants the prosecution witnesses would have been partially blinded by the light of the torchlight, and would not have been able to identify anybody.”
In view of the aforesaid decisions and the findings recorded by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution witnesses could not safely have witnessed the incident on a pitch-dark night or identified the assailants merely on the basis of the sound of the assault. The testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was therefore held to be unreliable.
Circumstantial Evidence and Standard of Proof
After the eyewitness evidence was discarded, the prosecution case necessarily rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The High Court had proceeded to examine whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused on the basis of the remaining circumstances and, on that basis, had upheld the convictions.
The Supreme Court held that the correctness of this approach had to be examined in light of the settled principles governing cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Court referred to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the following requirements were stated:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established;
(2) All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis other than the one proposed to be proved; and
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The chain must also show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
The Court further referred to Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 933, wherein it was held that the circumstances must be established and should not merely be capable of being established. The Court reiterated the settled principle that, however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court accordingly held that, in order to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be established beyond reasonable doubt and all the circumstances must collectively point towards the guilt of the accused.
The Court concluded that, when the evidence was viewed cumulatively, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the surviving appellants. The evidence contained substantial gaps, creating a reasonable doubt regarding their involvement.
The Court reiterated that, in criminal jurisprudence, where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court was not justified in affirming the convictions and that the surviving appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Order
The Supreme Court consequently passed the following order:
1. The appeals are allowed;
2. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.05.2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 84 of 2004, as well as the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002, are quashed and set aside.
The Court further directed that pending applications, if any, would stand disposed of.
Conclusion
The judgment reiterates that a murder conviction cannot be sustained on unreliable eyewitness testimony and an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances taken together must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.
In the present case, the alleged eyewitnesses could not safely identify the assailants on a pitch-dark night, their testimonies contained material inconsistencies, and the remaining circumstantial evidence did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the appellants. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the Odisha murder convictions and extended the benefit of doubt to the surviving appellants.
