6 years jail, ₹6 lakh aid: Supreme Court tells Uttar Pradesh to pay for ‘poor probe’ after man acquitted in murder case

The Uttar Pradesh government must pay within a month or face 18% annual interest, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran ruled.

The Supreme Court on Monday awarded ₹6 lakh in compensation to a man who spent six years in jail as an undertrial before being acquitted in a murder case, holding the Uttar Pradesh police accountable for a probe that jeopardised his life and liberty and describing the case as “a classic case of how an investigation should not be proceeded with”.

The case involved a 2019 kidnapping and murder in Agra, with investigators failing to establish the identity of recovered bones or prove key evidence. (ANI)

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said six years had been “erased from the life of a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures”, castigating the investigating and prosecuting agencies for failing to establish even the most basic facts of the alleged crime.

Directing the state government to pay ₹6 lakh within a month, the court effectively awarded ₹1 lakh for every year the man spent in custody. If the state fails to pay within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 18% per annum.

“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,” said the bench in its October 26 judgment, underlining that the police and prosecution must work towards ensuring justice for the accused as well as the victim.

The case concerned a kidnapping and murder registered in October 2019 in Agra district. The man was neither named in the first information report nor in the initial police statement. He was subsequently implicated on the basis of CCTV footage and the alleged confession of a co-accused.

He remained in custody from November 14, 2019, while the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. In March this year, the Supreme Court, while considering his bail plea, directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The trial ended in his acquittal, prompting the top court to examine the trial court’s judgment and the evidence marshalled by the prosecution.

What the bench found was a catalogue of investigative failures. Only six witnesses were examined by the prosecution, while crucial links connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime remained unproved. The recovered charred bones were never conclusively identified as those of the missing man, and neither the time nor the cause of death could be established through the medical evidence.

The court also found that the CCTV footage was unclear and had not been proved in accordance with the law. The call detail records collected by investigators lacked the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. There was no reliable proof of the alleged ransom demand, while the prosecution’s claim that the accused had used petrol to burn the body was unsupported by basic forensic and other evidence.

Bench condemns ‘slipshod’ probe and ‘haphazard’ prosecution

The forensic laboratory’s findings on the bones were not disclosed at trial, and investigators made no attempt to match the remains with a DNA sample from the deceased’s father.

“Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out,” lamented the bench, describing the probe as “slipshod” and the prosecution as “haphazard”.

The bench said investigating and prosecuting agencies could not view their role merely as securing convictions “by whatever means”. Instead, they were “essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system”, responsible for ensuring justice not only to victims, complainants and the injured but also to those accused of crimes.