Quick Answer: The Supreme Court acquitted the four surviving appellants convicted of murder by an unlawful assembly in a 2001 Odisha case. The High Court had itself discarded the eyewitnesses, who were all relatives of the deceased, because the attack happened on a pitch dark night. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not then stand on circumstantial evidence built on the same witnesses. Their life sentences under Sections 302/149 IPC were set aside.
In Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. etc. v. State of Odisha (2026 INSC 1015), the Supreme Court held that once the eyewitness account is discarded, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires each circumstance to be proved individually and the chain to be complete; where "two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail" (paras 22, 31–33). A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale (author) allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions (paras 34–35).
Status: Criminal appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 06.05.2009 and conviction by the trial court dated 28.01.2004 quashed; appeals of two appellants had abated on their death (paras 10, 35).
Headnote: Murder by Unlawful Assembly, Pitch Dark Night and Circumstantial Evidence
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 506, 302 read with 149 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Related eyewitnesses – Identification on a pitch dark night by torchlight of the accused and sound of assault – Circumstantial evidence – “panchsutra” of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda – Benefit of doubt.
Held: (i) All the alleged eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 26) were relatives of the deceased, and their versions were materially inconsistent on who was present; the informant's own FIR named only two of them as eyewitnesses (paras 16–17).
(ii) It was not possible for the witnesses to have seen the incident on a pitch dark night from 60 cubits, or to have identified the assailants by the sound of the assault or by torchlight held by the accused themselves (paras 18–21).
(iii) Once the eyewitness account is discarded, the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and must meet the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda tests (paras 22–25).
(iv) The circumstances relied on by the High Court rested on the same inconsistent witnesses, whose conduct was also unnatural, and the circumstance of identification was not proved (paras 26–29).
(v) The theory of death by a 53 kg laterite stone was unsupported; the stone was never recovered or sent to the medical officer (para 30).
(vi) Each circumstance must be proved individually; the chain was incomplete, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt (paras 31–34).
(paras 16–35)
Case Details: Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha (2026 INSC 1015)
Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; convictions and life sentences under Sections 148, 506 and 302/149 IPC set aside.
Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. etc. v. The State of Odisha
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1015
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047–1048 of 2010 with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 18 September 2026
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale (authored by Justice Prasanna B. Varale)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 149, 302 and 506
Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 84 of 2004, upholding the trial court's conviction in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002 (para 1)
Counsel: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv. and Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv. for the appellants; Mr. Vishnu Kant for the respondent-State of Odisha (paras 11–12)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Inconsistency among related eyewitnesses on who was present at the scene goes to the root of the prosecution case (para 17).
- Following State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar and Tamilselvan v. State, identification on a pitch dark night, where the only light was torchlight held by the accused, is unsafe (paras 18–21).
- When the High Court itself discards the ocular version, the conviction must be tested strictly by the principles governing purely circumstantial cases (para 22).
- Circumstances "must or should" be established, not "may be" established; suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof (paras 23–24).
- A witness claiming to be an eyewitness who cannot say who carried which weapon and does not raise an alarm for two hours shows unnatural conduct (para 28).
- Each link must be proved individually and collectively form an unbroken chain, following Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala (paras 31–32).
- Where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail (para 33).
Brief Facts of the Case
The prosecution case was that on 14.05.2001 at about 4:00 PM, an accused came to the informant's house, abused the family and threatened to kill the deceased, Dhruba Pradhan. At about 7:00 PM, a group of accused armed with weapons came to the house searching for him. The deceased, travelling by motorcycle, was intercepted at Agi Chhak, carried into a paddy field and assaulted with a laterite stone, iron rod and other weapons. His motorcycle was thrown into a pond (paras 2–3).
The FIR was lodged by PW-3, a brother of the deceased, at 2:00 AM on 15.05.2001. A chargesheet was filed against 18 accused; 14 were tried under Sections 148, 506/149 and 302/149 IPC. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses and the defence one (paras 4–7).
On 28.01.2004 the trial court convicted six accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000 each, acquitting eight others (para 8). The High Court discarded the eyewitness testimony, holding that the assailants could not have been identified in the pitch dark night merely by the sound of the assault, but upheld the conviction on circumstantial evidence (para 9).
During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, two appellants died and their appeals abated, leaving four appellants (para 10).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses could be relied on to identify the assailants.
- Whether, after discarding the eyewitness account, the High Court could uphold the conviction on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the circumstances relied on formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants.
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Related and inconsistent witnesses: The Court noted that PW-3 and PW-4 were brothers, and PW-10, PW-11, PW-17 and PW-26 sisters-in-law, of the deceased. PW-3 was not present at the spot and his FIR named only PW-17 and PW-26 as eyewitnesses, while PW-4 claimed that he, PW-3 and the others were all watching. This was a significant inconsistency (paras 16–17).
Pitch dark night: The incident took place on a pitch dark night, with the witnesses about 60 cubits away. Relying on State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, where identification even in moonlight was held improbable, and Tamilselvan v. State, where torches carried by the assailants would have partly blinded the witnesses, the Court held that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses could not be relied on (paras 18–21).
Circumstantial evidence: With the ocular version discarded, the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence. The Court applied the five principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (paras 22–25).
The High Court's circumstances: The High Court relied on eight circumstances, including the 4 PM threat, the 7 PM visit with weapons, the search by 200 to 250 persons, the identification by torchlight and voice, and recoveries. The circumstances about the threat, the visit and the interception rested on the same inconsistent witnesses (paras 26–27).
Unnatural conduct: PW-3, though claiming to be an eyewitness, could not say which accused carried which weapon, and said he went home after the assault and came back two hours later without informing anyone (para 28).
Identification not proved: Since the witnesses could not have seen the incident or identified the assailants by sound, the circumstance of identification was not proved (para 29).
The 53 kg stone: There was no material on how the 53 kg laterite stone was brought or by whom, and it was never recovered. The medical officer, PW-18, deposed that no weapon, including a stone like MO3, was sent to him for opinion (para 30).
Incomplete chain: Relying on Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, the Court held that each circumstance must be proved individually. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence left substantial gaps and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt (paras 31–34).
Final Outcome and Directions
The appeals were allowed. The High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 84 of 2004 and the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002 were quashed and set aside. Pending applications stood disposed of (paras 35–36).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Where the eyewitness account is rejected as unreliable, a conviction cannot be sustained on circumstances that rest on the testimony of the same witnesses. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved individually beyond doubt and all of them together must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt; where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail (paras 22, 27, 31–33).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, (1979) 3 SCC 1 – identification at night from a distance is unsafe even in moonlight (para 18).
- Tamilselvan v. State, (2008) 7 SCC 755 – where only the assailants carried torches, witnesses could not have identified them (para 20).
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – five principles for circumstantial evidence (para 23).
- Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 933 – circumstances "must or should" be established; suspicion cannot replace proof (para 24).
- Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 111 – each circumstance must be proved individually (para 31).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 17: "Thus, while PW-3's version indicates that he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence, PW-4's testimony seeks to portray PW-3, along with the other prosecution witnesses, as being present and witnessing the incident, giving rise to a significant inconsistency in the prosecution case."
Para 22: "Once the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses is discarded, the prosecution case necessarily becomes one based solely on circumstantial evidence."
Para 28: "Though PW-3 claims himself to be an eye witness interestingly he is unable to state as to which weapon was carried by which of the accused."
Para 29: "Once such evidence is found to be unreliable, the circumstance of identification cannot be said to have been proved."
Para 32: "Thus, it is a settled position of law that to convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence each circumstance must be established beyond doubt and collectively point towards the guilt of the accused."
Para 33: "The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a reasonable doubt as to their involvement. In criminal jurisprudence, where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For defence lawyers: Where an appellate court rejects the eyewitnesses, the ruling supports arguing that the "circumstances" drawn from the same witnesses fall with them.
- For prosecutors: In night-time group attacks, the source and quality of light, the distance and independent witnesses need to be proved; relying only on relatives with inconsistent accounts is risky.
- For investigators: Weapons of offence, such as the stone said to have caused death, must be recovered and sent for medical opinion (para 30).
- For trial courts: Each circumstance in a Section 149 IPC case must be tested individually before the chain is treated as complete.
FAQs on Night-Time Identification and Circumstantial Evidence
1. Why did the Supreme Court reject the eyewitnesses?
They were relatives of the deceased whose accounts conflicted on who was present, and it was not possible to see the incident or identify the assailants on a pitch dark night from 60 cubits (paras 16–21).
2. Can identification by the sound of an assault be relied on?
Not in this case. The Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the assailants could not be identified merely by the sound of the assault (paras 19, 21, 29).
3. Does torchlight held by the accused help identification?
Relying on Tamilselvan v. State, the Court noted that witnesses facing torches carried by the assailants would be partly blinded and unable to identify anyone (para 20).
4. Why did the circumstantial evidence fail?
The key circumstances rested on the same inconsistent witnesses, identification was not proved, and the 53 kg stone theory had no supporting material, so the chain was incomplete (paras 27–30, 33).
5. What happened to the appellants who died during the appeal?
The appeals of two appellants abated on their death, and the appeals were confined to the remaining four appellants (para 10).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1015, Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha, Section 302 IPC, Section 149 IPC, Section 148 IPC, unlawful assembly, murder acquittal, circumstantial evidence, pitch dark night identification, related witnesses, State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, Tamilselvan v. State, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, benefit of doubt, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Supreme Court reportable judgment, criminal lawyer
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Kartika @ Kirtan v. State of Odisha
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).
![Retaliatory Counterblast FIR Quashed: Anita Maurya v. State of U.P. [2026 INSC 806]](/uploads/images/2026/11/8232ade3-3961-49ac-9816-a90f9c6b417e.jpg)
![Aravalli Plantation Land Protected, Mining Lease Cancelled: Sunder Singh [2026 INSC 855]](/uploads/images/2026/11/e96bb3f3-c80d-472c-9131-98724d5f22bf.jpg)
![Section 299 CrPC Order Mandatory for Absconding Accused: Mahendra Singh [2026 INSC 775]](/uploads/images/2026/11/89d3a4d9-e0df-4da3-a33b-ed6cd5e5bd17.jpg)