SC slams ‘slipshod investigation’, orders UP to pay Rs 6 lakh to man acquitted after six years as undertrial

“Six years have been erased from the life of a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures. Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out,” the apex court observed. The Supreme Court directed the state government to pay the compensation within one month, making it clear that any delay beyond the stipulated period would attract interest at 18 per cent per annum. “We, hence, direct the State to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-; though paltry in comparison to the years spent in custody, within a period of one month to the petitioner herein. If the amount is not so paid within the time stipulated, it shall carry interest @18 per cent per annum,” it said. The judgment, authored by Justice Vinod Chandran, came after the apex court, while initially hearing the man’s bail plea, directed the trial court on March 23 to conclude the proceedings within three months. The petitioner had been in custody since November 14, 2019, in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

After the trial concluded, the Supreme Court was informed that the petitioner had been acquitted. The apex court then called for the trial court’s judgment to examine the circumstances surrounding the prosecution, observing that the initial records had disclosed serious deficiencies in the investigation. “We cannot but deprecate the manner in which the investigation was carried out and the prosecution conducted,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said, adding that the Uttar Pradesh Police would do well to educate its officers in the process of investigation. The top court also directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

The case arose from an FIR registered in 2019 at Achhnera police station in Agra district under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abduction in order to murder), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution’s case was that the deceased had gone missing after leaving his workplace at Kiraoli Tehsil on October 18, 2019. His father, who was the informant, initially lodged a missing-person report and subsequently informed the police about information that his son had allegedly been abducted by unknown persons. The petitioner was subsequently arrayed as an accused along with another man, Lalit Kishore, on the basis of CCTV footage and an alleged confession. The prosecution also relied on recoveries said to have been made during the investigation. However, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had not been named in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It further recorded that the bones recovered during the investigation had not been conclusively identified as those of the missing person and that the postmortem examination had not established the cause of death.

The bench observed that only six witnesses had been examined by the prosecution, including the informant, a doctor, police personnel, and an independent witness. It found that several crucial aspects of the case had not been properly investigated or established during the trial. It further observed that no DNA comparison had been conducted to establish whether the recovered bones belonged to the deceased, despite the doctor having stated that such an examination was necessary. The forensic examination results were also not disclosed during the trial. The Supreme Court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused had led the police to the places from where various articles were recovered or that the recoveries had been made pursuant to any disclosure statement recorded in accordance with law. The trial court had acquitted the petitioner after finding that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had been proved. Taking note of these deficiencies, the Supreme Court said the investigation and prosecution agencies must recognise their role as stakeholders in the justice delivery system rather than focus solely on securing convictions.

“The State cannot shirk from its responsibility to protect its citizens, especially when a person arraigned in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed. It added that investigating and prosecuting agencies must ensure justice not only for victims, complainants, and the injured, but also for the accused. “The investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means, bring in a conviction. They should recognise themselves to be essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring justice, not only to the victim, the de facto complainant and the injured but also to the accused,” the judgment said. Observing that such instances of injustice come before the top court in several matters, the bench said that cases as blatant and shocking as the present one required reparation for the accused, who had himself become a victim of the system. “We come across such travesty of justice in many matters, but in some, so blatant and shocking, as in this case, which requires reparation to the accused, who in turn is a victim of the system,” the Supreme Court observed, directing the state government to pay compensation to the petitioner.