Twenty-Eight Years For An Appeal. Two Men Walk Free.
The convictions were recorded in April 1998. The appeal was decided in August 2026. Two appellants were acquitted outright and a third had his murder conviction reduced.
The appeal was allowed in part. The conviction of two appellants was set aside — the corroboration relied on did not provide clear and independent support for the overt acts attributed to them, and the omissions in the evidence left the doubt standing. They were discharged from their bail bonds. A third appellant's conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC from murder.
- Corroboration has to be independent and directed to the specific overt acts alleged, not general support for the prosecution story.
- Omissions in the evidence carried weight, and the doubt they raised was never dispelled.
- Murder reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the remaining appellant.
- Twenty-eight years between conviction and appellate decision, with an amicus appointed to argue it.
- Court
- High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
- Bench
- Justice MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, Justice MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
- Citation
- CRA No. 88 of 1998
- Case
- CRA No. 88 of 1998
- Decided
- 25 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; two acquitted, one conviction modified to Section 304 Part II
What happened
The Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara convicted the appellants in April 1998. The appeal under Section 374 of the Code was registered as CRA No. 88 of 1998 and decided on 25 August 2026 — twenty-eight years later, with a Senior Counsel appointed as amicus curiae to argue for the appellants.
Why two convictions fell
The prosecution relied on a witness as corroboration of the participation of two of the appellants. Examining that testimony carefully, the Court found it did not provide clear and independent corroboration of the specific overt acts attributed to them, and so could not dispel the doubt arising from the rest of the evidence.
The omissions in the evidence relating to those two appellants compounded it. Their conviction was set aside and they were discharged from their bail bonds.
For a third appellant the Court did not acquit but reduced the offence, modifying his conviction to one under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 Part II?
Section 302 is murder. Section 304 Part II is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without the intention to cause it.
Can a conviction from 1998 still be set aside?
Yes. This appeal was decided in 2026 and two appellants were acquitted.
Arguing an old criminal appeal
- Test corroboration against the specific overt acts alleged against your client, not against the prosecution case generally.
- Build the omissions in the evidence into a single argument about doubt rather than listing them separately.
- Where acquittal is unlikely, argue in the alternative for the lesser offence; one appellant here moved from murder to Section 304 Part II.
- Ask for amicus appointment where the appellant is unrepresented after decades.
Source. High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRA No. 88 of 1998, decided 25 August 2026 by Justice MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, Justice MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Orissa at Cuttack and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in