Six Men Get Life for Murder Despite Unreliable Night-Time Identification; Supreme Court Acquits Four Surviving Appellants, Finds Circumstantial Chain Incomplete

High Court Discards Eyewitness Account but Still Upholds Murder Conviction on Circumstances; Supreme Court Finds Broken Chain, Acquits Accused

Facts

The case arose from the murder of Dhruba Pradhan in Odisha on 14 May 2001.

According to the prosecution’s case, at around 4:00 PM, accused Narendra @ Narahari Behera came to the informant’s house, abused the family and threatened to kill the deceased. At approximately 7:00 PM, a group allegedly arrived armed with weapons including a kata, tenta, stones and a saw, searched for the deceased and threatened to kill him.

The prosecution alleged that when the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle, the accused intercepted him at Agi Chhak. He attempted to escape but was allegedly caught, taken into a nearby paddy field and assaulted with weapons including a thenga, iron rod and bhujali. A laterite stone was also allegedly thrown on his head. His motorcycle was subsequently thrown into a pond.

Eighteen persons were charge-sheeted. One died, proceedings against three absconding accused were separated and 14 accused faced trial.

The Trial Court convicted six persons under Sections 148, 506 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting eight others by giving them the benefit of doubt.

The Orissa High Court found that the alleged eyewitnesses could not have identified the assailants on a pitch-dark night merely from the sound of the assault. It therefore discarded the direct eyewitness account.

Despite doing so, the High Court upheld the convictions on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

The convicted accused approached the Supreme Court. Two appellants died during the pendency of the appeals, leaving the appeals of the remaining four accused for consideration.

Issues

The principal issue was:

Whether the conviction for murder could survive solely on circumstantial evidence after the alleged eyewitness testimony regarding identification of the accused had been found unreliable.

The Court also considered whether:

identification in pitch darkness from a considerable distance was reliable;
the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution formed a complete chain;
contradictions among the related witnesses affected the prosecution case;
motive and recovery were adequately established; and
the High Court was justified in affirming the conviction after rejecting the ocular evidence.

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants argued that once the High Court itself rejected the eyewitness testimony, there was insufficient evidence remaining to sustain a conviction for murder.

The alleged eyewitnesses were close relatives of the deceased—his brothers and sisters-in-law—and their accounts contained material contradictions.

The defence particularly highlighted the evidence that the deceased had been involved in several criminal cases and had numerous enemies. Evidence suggested that 200–250 persons were searching for him that night, creating a reasonable possibility of alternative perpetrators.

It was further argued that no incriminating article had been recovered at the instance of the appellants. The chopped wrist, laterite stones and lathi were merely recovered from the scene.

The prosecution had also failed to examine independent witnesses despite its own case suggesting that hundreds of people were searching for the deceased.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Odisha defended the concurrent convictions.

It argued that the prosecution had established an unbroken sequence beginning with the threat made earlier in the day, followed by the accused allegedly searching for the deceased while armed, intercepting him and ultimately killing him.

The State relied upon medical evidence confirming homicidal death and physical evidence including a bamboo lathi, blood-stained earth and the deceased’s motorcycle recovered from a pond.

It further argued that under Section 149 IPC, once the common object of the unlawful assembly was established, it was unnecessary to prove a specific overt act against each accused.

Analysis of the Law

Homicidal Death Was Proved — Identity Was Not

The Supreme Court made an important distinction.

There was no serious doubt that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death.

But proof that a murder occurred is different from proof that the particular accused before the Court committed that murder.

The decisive question was whether the prosecution had established the authorship of the crime by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court held that it had not.

Contradictory Eyewitness Accounts

The prosecution substantially relied upon PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 26, all of whom were related to the deceased.

The Court identified a significant contradiction.

PW-3, who lodged the FIR, stated that only PW-17 and PW-26 witnessed the occurrence.

However, PW-4 gave a materially different account and claimed that PW-3, PW-10, PW-11, PW-17, PW-26 and he himself were observing the accused during the incident.

Thus, there was a fundamental inconsistency concerning who was actually present and witnessed the murder.

Importantly, the Court did not reject their evidence merely because they were relatives. The unreliability arose from the contradictions, visibility conditions and other evidentiary deficiencies.

Could Assailants Be Identified in Pitch Darkness?

The incident occurred during a pitch-dark night, and the alleged witnesses were approximately 60 cubits away.

The Supreme Court relied upon State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, where identification from a considerable distance at night was considered unsafe.

In the present case, the situation was even more doubtful because there was no moonlight identified as a reliable source of illumination.

Instead, the prosecution’s case was that the accused themselves were carrying torches.

Relying on Tamilselvan v. State, the Supreme Court noted the difficulty of witnesses identifying assailants when the torches were being carried by the assailants themselves rather than being directed at them by the witnesses.

The Court therefore agreed that the alleged eyewitness identification could not safely be relied upon.

Once Eyewitness Evidence Failed, Case Became Purely Circumstantial

This became the heart of the judgment.

Once the ocular testimony was discarded, the prosecution case had to satisfy the stringent requirements governing a conviction entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court invoked the classic five-fold test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:

every circumstance from which guilt is inferred must be fully established;
the established facts must be consistent only with guilt;
the circumstances must be conclusive;
they must exclude every hypothesis other than guilt; and
the chain must be so complete that no reasonable conclusion consistent with innocence remains.

Suspicion, However Strong, Is Not Proof

The Court also relied upon Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

It reiterated that circumstances “must or should” be established, not merely that they “may be” established.

Most importantly:

However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstantial chain must point only towards the guilt of the accused and must exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses.

Circumstances Relied Upon by High Court

The High Court had relied upon several circumstances, including:

an earlier threat to kill the deceased;
accused allegedly coming armed to the deceased’s house;
200–250 persons searching for him;
accused allegedly waiting at Agi Chhak;
identification through voice;
witnesses hearing the assault;
accused allegedly remaining there for two hours; and
recovery of weapons and the deceased’s motorcycle.

The Supreme Court found that several of these circumstances themselves depended upon the very witnesses whose accounts contained material inconsistencies.

Once their identification evidence was found unreliable, the supposed identification of the appellants could not constitute a proved circumstance.

Witness Conduct Also Raised Doubts

The Supreme Court also found aspects of the witnesses’ conduct unnatural.

For instance, PW-3 claimed to have witnessed the incident but could not state which accused was carrying which weapon.

He further stated that after the assault he went home and returned approximately two hours later, without attempting in the meantime to inform other family members or persons in the village about such a serious incident.

The Court treated these circumstances as further weakening the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative.

53-Kg Laterite Stone Theory

The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been struck with a 53-kg laterite stone.

The Supreme Court found serious deficiencies in this theory.

There was no material showing how such a heavy stone was brought to the scene or who brought it, and the alleged 53-kg stone used in the commission of the offence was not recovered.

The medical officer had also stated that no weapon of offence, including a laterite stone like the material object referred to during trial, had been sent to him by the Investigating Officer for opinion.

Precedent Analysis

State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar

Relied upon to assess the reliability of night-time identification from a considerable distance.

Tamilselvan v. State

Applied to the prosecution’s claim that the accused themselves were carrying torches. The judgment recognised the difficulty in identifying assailants where the source of light is being carried by the assailants rather than directed towards them.

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

The Court applied its celebrated “panchsutra” governing conviction on circumstantial evidence.

Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Reiterated that strong suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala

The Court reiterated that each individual incriminating circumstance must first be proved, and collectively those circumstances must form an unbroken chain consistent only with guilt and inconsistent with innocence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in sustaining the conviction after the direct identification evidence had become unreliable.

The remaining circumstances did not form the kind of complete and conclusive chain necessary to sustain a murder conviction.

There were:

material contradictions about the presence of witnesses;
unreliable identification in pitch darkness;
doubtful voice/sound identification;
lack of reliable evidence linking particular weapons to the appellants;
serious gaps in the 53-kg stone theory; and
reasonable alternative possibilities that had not been excluded.

The Court held that the evidence left “substantial gaps” creating reasonable doubt about the appellants’ involvement.

It reiterated the fundamental principle that:

Where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted the four surviving appellants the benefit of doubt.

It set aside:

the Orissa High Court judgment dated 6 May 2009; and
the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28 January 2004.

Accordingly, the murder convictions and life sentences of the surviving appellants were quashed and set aside.

Case Details

Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. State of Odisha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 1015
Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047–1048 of 2010 with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Judgment by: Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: 18 September 2026
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and life sentence set aside; surviving appellants granted benefit of doubt.