The High Court Would Not Hear Him Because He Was Late. He Is Now Free.
He filed his jail appeal 3,157 days late and the High Court refused to condone it. The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 3,703 days, heard the case, and acquitted him.
The Court condoned the delay, set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, cancelling his personal bond. It held that courts should take not merely a liberal but a pro-active approach to condoning delay, however large, when a convict knocks at the door of a court in appeal. On the evidence, the eyewitness testimony was shaky and highly improbable. The District Legal Services Authority was directed to attempt his rehabilitation.
- Liberty is the reason. Delay in an appeal against conviction deprives a person of the most valuable of rights.
- Pro-active, not merely liberal — the standard the Court set for condoning a convict's delay.
- Three deaths were alleged, one conviction followed, and it rested on a single eyewitness the Court found improbable.
- Twenty-two years were erased without reliable evidence, and the Court said so in terms.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice J.B. PARDIWALA, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 802
- Reported
- [2026] 8 S.C.R. 400
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 3639 of 2026
- Decided
- 4 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and appellant acquitted
What was refused below
Convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three women, he filed a jail memo of appeal after already serving twelve years, along with an application to condone a delay of 3,157 days.
The High Court rejected the condonation application and, as a consequence, dismissed the jail appeal without hearing it.
The appeal to the Supreme Court came after twenty-two years in prison, with a delay of 3,703 days — which was condoned.
What the Court said about delay
Access to justice still eludes the marginalised, and especially those convicted and imprisoned from among them.
When the three pillars of democracy are working to bring legal aid to the doorstep of every citizen, and particularly the poor, the needy and the deprived, constitutional courts should introspect and sensitise themselves, taking a liberal approach to delay in an appeal from a conviction and sentence.
Not merely liberal but pro-active: delay should be condoned, however large, when a convict knocks at the door of a court in appeal, because what is at stake is liberty.
And on the evidence
Though three murders were alleged, he was convicted for only one — the one witnessed by PW-3.
That testimony was shaky and highly improbable, and did not lead to a definite conclusion of guilt. A serious doubt lingered over the finding.
The Court recorded what the case amounted to: three lives taken, a person picked up on mere suspicion, a confession extracted by third-degree methods and in any event inadmissible, a trial court that failed to evaluate the evidence, and a High Court that remained a mute spectator while adding to its tally of disposals — cumulatively erasing twenty-two years of a man's life without reliable evidence. The District Legal Services Authority was directed to attempt his rehabilitation or resettlement.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a delay of years in filing a criminal appeal be condoned?
Yes. The Court said the approach should be pro-active, condoning delay however large when a convict comes in appeal, because liberty is at stake.
What happened to him after the acquittal?
His personal bond was cancelled and the District Legal Services Authority was directed to attempt his rehabilitation or resettlement.
Reviving a long-delayed appeal against conviction
- Lead with liberty. The length of the delay is not the measure; what the delay costs is.
- Set out the prisoner's circumstances — legal aid, literacy, access to the record — as the reason the appeal was late.
- Ask the court to look at the merits alongside condonation; here the weakness of the eyewitness carried both.
- Seek a direction to the District Legal Services Authority for rehabilitation where a long sentence has been served.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 802, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 400, Criminal Appeal No. 3639 of 2026, decided 4 August 2026 by Justice J.B. PARDIWALA, Justice K. Vinod Chandran. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in