Bhubaneswar: The Supreme Court has acquitted four persons convicted in the 2001 Dhruba Pradhan murder case in Odisha, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement either through direct or circumstantial evidence.
The court found significant inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and held that the alleged assailants could not have been reliably identified on a pitch-dark night.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside the judgments of the Orissa High Court and the trial court, extending the benefit of doubt to the four appellants. The judgment was delivered in Kartika aka Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. v. State of Odisha on September 18, 2026.
The case dates back to May 14, 2001. According to the prosecution, one of the accused had visited the informant’s house at around 4 pm and allegedly threatened to kill Dhruba Pradhan. Later that evening, a group of armed persons allegedly searched for Pradhan, intercepted him while he was travelling on a motorcycle, assaulted him with weapons and stones, and threw his motorcycle into a pond.
The prosecution subsequently chargesheeted 18 persons, of whom 14 faced trial. The trial court convicted six persons under Sections 148, 506 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting eight others.
The convicted persons challenged the verdict before the Orissa High Court. While the 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 nevertheless upheld the convictions by relying on circumstantial evidence.
The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeals, two of the six convicts died, leaving four appellants before the top court.
SC finds contradictions in eyewitness accounts
The Supreme Court closely examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased. It found a significant inconsistency regarding who had actually witnessed the incident.
The court noted that PW-3, who lodged the FIR, had stated that only PW-17 and PW-26 had witnessed the occurrence. However, PW-4 later claimed that PW-3, along with PW-10, PW-11, PW-17 and PW-26, was present and watching the accused during the incident. The bench held that this created a material inconsistency in the prosecution case.
The court also examined whether the witnesses could have identified the assailants under the circumstances. The incident took place on a pitch-dark night, with the alleged witnesses positioned at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence.
The bench observed that the alleged source of illumination was torchlight carried by the accused themselves. Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, it noted that such lighting conditions made identification particularly difficult because the witnesses would effectively have been looking towards the source of the torchlight.
The Supreme Court therefore agreed with the High Court’s finding that the witnesses could not have witnessed the assault or identified the assailants merely from the sound of the attack. It consequently held that the alleged eyewitness testimony could not be relied upon.
Once the eyewitness evidence was discarded, the prosecution case effectively rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that each circumstance had to be independently established and that, taken together, the circumstances had to form a complete chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused.
The bench found that several of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution—including the alleged threat, the armed search and identification of the accused—were themselves dependent on the same eyewitness testimony that had been found unreliable.
The court also noted gaps relating to the alleged weapon used in the assault. There was no evidence establishing how the heavy stone allegedly used in the attack was brought to the spot, while the stone was neither recovered nor sent for medical examination. The medical officer had also stated that no weapon, including the alleged laterite stone, had been sent for examination.
The appellants had also argued that no recovery was made at their instance and that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, despite its claim that a large number of villagers were searching for the deceased.
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than the appellants’ guilt. The evidence, it held, left substantial gaps creating reasonable doubt about their involvement.
The court accordingly set aside the trial court and High Court judgments and acquitted the four surviving appellants by extending to them the benefit of doubt.