Bhubaneswar: The JMFC-III Court in Bhubaneswar has acquitted Kari Satti Babu alias Satheesh Reddy, a 40-year-old man from Visakhapatnam, in the sensational burglary at senior Congress leader Niranjan Patnaik’s IRC village residence in January 2025.
The verdict, delivered on January 30, 2026, declared the accused not guilty, citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. Reddy, dubbed the “spider thief” by local media for his alleged agile entry methods in past cases, was cleared of all allegations, with the court ordering his immediate release and the cancellation of his bail bond.
According to the prosecution, an intruder entered the house around 2.30 am on January 26, 2025, while Patnaik’s son Devjyoti and his daughter-in-law, Meenu were away at Chilika. The thief allegedly climbed to the second-floor bedroom via the staircase, as captured partially on internal CCTV cameras, before disconnecting the bedroom camera’s power supply around 3 am. Devjyoti’s son, Advik Pattnaik, returned home around 3.40 am and heard noises from the locked bedroom. He alerted security, and upon forcing entry with a master key, they discovered an open rear window, a disturbed wardrobe, and a broken briefcase. Gold and diamond jewellery, including bracelets, necklaces, rings, and solitaires, valued at approximately Rs 50 lakh along with Rs. 2.5 lakh in cash were found missing.
The burglary took place amid heightened security in the state capital for 76th Republic Day celebrations.
Devjyoti lodged an FIR at Nayapalli police station later that morning.. On February 12, 2025, based on a tip-off, police raided Berhampur, where they apprehended Reddy near his Andhra Pradesh-registered Swift Dzire car. He allegedly confessed to the crime and led officers to his rented home at Gollepeta in Andhra Pradesh’s Bheemunipatnam, where jewellery matching the description and Rs 2.5 lakh in cash were recovered that night. The items were identified by Meenu on March 13, 2025, and returned to the family.
The trial, which began with charges framed on July 17, 2025, saw the prosecution examine 12 witnesses, including the Pattnaik family, police officials, and seizure witnesses, while exhibiting 22 documents and material objects like CCTV footage CDs. The defence claimed that Reddy was at home caring for his paralysed daughter on the night of the theft and was falsely implicated. His counsel highlighted his arrest on February 10, 2025, in Andhra Pradesh for an unrelated case, supported by a Fastag e-statement showing his vehicle’s movements.
In her detailed judgment, JMFC judge Karonika Ghose acquitted Reddy, emphasising that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence that failed to form a complete chain pointing unequivocally to his guilt.
Key reasons for the acquittal in the 63-page judgment
Lack of Independent Witnesses: All seizures, including the apparel from Reddy’s car in Berhampur and the jewelry from his home, were witnessed solely by police personnel. No local or impartial witnesses were involved, despite the raids occurring in busy areas like Berhampur’s Bada Bazaar. The court noted this as a procedural lapse, undermining the credibility of the recoveries, and cited earlier rulings, which stress the need for public witnesses to ensure impartiality.
Material Contradictions in Testimonies: Significant inconsistencies emerged among police witnesses. For instance, one officer claimed jewellery was found on Reddy in Berhampur and carried to Andhra Pradesh, contradicting others who said it was recovered from his home. Additionally, accounts varied on whether Reddy was shown CCTV footage before confessing, with some witnesses retracting their initial statements. These discrepancies cast doubt on the arrest and recovery process.
Flawed Handling of Electronic Evidence: The prosecution relied on CCTV footage showing an intruder with a covered face, but the certificate under Section 63(4)(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) was invalid. The footage was first extracted to a pen drive by the investigator, not the owner (Pattnaik), violating Supreme Court rulings), which require certification from the device’s operator. No forensic expert opinion was sought to match the footage to Reddy.
Other Procedural Anomalies: The court pointed out the absence of reports from the forensic team (DFSL) and canine squad, despite requisitions. Reddy’s alleged confession was not recorded before a magistrate as required under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Claims of Reddy’s involvement in 34 prior cases and 11 convictions were unsubstantiated, with no supporting documents produced. The investigation also failed to explore alternative suspects, such as household members with access to duplicate keys.
“The chain of evidence is not complete,” the judgment stated, acquitting Reddy and classifying the case as a “mistake of fact.”
