The Supreme Court on Monday reportedly directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh in compensation to a man who spent nearly six years in jail as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case before being acquitted. The top court criticised the police investigation and prosecution, calling the case a “travesty of justice”, as per LiveLaw.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the man lost six years of his life because of a false story based on assumptions rather than proper evidence. The court also asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to train officers in proper investigation methods, warning that a poor investigation could put a person's life and freedom at risk. “Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out,” the bench observed.
ALSO READ | Legal action, even ‘false’ FIR, not instigation to suicide: SC
Man was not named in FIR
The case began with an FIR registered in Agra district in October 2019 in connection with a kidnapping and murder. Police arrested the man on November 14, 2019.
The petitioner was not named in the FIR or in the complainant's statement to the police, as per LiveLaw. Investigators later linked him to the crime using CCTV footage and an alleged confession by a co-accused. The co-accused died during the trial, while another accused, his mother, remained absconding. The petitioner was the only accused who faced trial.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner was not named in the FIR or in the complainant's statement to the police, as per LiveLaw. Investigators later linked him to the crime using CCTV footage and an alleged confession by a co-accused. The co-accused died during the trial, while another accused, his mother, remained absconding. The petitioner was the only accused who faced trial.
{{/usCountry}}In March, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months while hearing his bail plea. The bench noted that he spent a long time in jail and that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The trial ended with the man's acquittal. The Supreme Court then examined the trial court's judgment to understand how the case had been handled.
"It is unfortunate that despite no evidence against the petitioner herein, he was imprisoned for six years as an undertrial. Based on a slipshod investigation, a haphazard prosecution was carried out, which resulted, fortunately in the acquittal of the accused. We cannot but deprecate the manner in which the investigation was carried out and the prosecution conducted," the SC said.
ALSO READ | All SIR decisions unanimous, Form 6 not amended: Election Commission to Supreme Court
Supreme Court questions CCTV evidence
After reviewing the judgment, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the evidence used against the man. The bench noted that the CCTV footage was unclear and did not have the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to support electronic evidence.
The court also pointed out that a sub-inspector had not testified that the complainant identified the accused in the CCTV footage or recognised him as one of the people who had approached him on the day of the incident.
"The CCTV footage was not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. PW4, the Sub-Inspector did not testify of the accused persons having been identified by PW1, the complainant, either from the CCTV footage nor as the persons who had approached him on the same day", the top court said.
The bench criticised the police for conducting a poor investigation and the prosecution for proceeding without reliable evidence. It said the man had spent six years in jail despite the lack of evidence against him.
ALSO READ | SC grants anticipatory bail to woman in cheating case
Justice must be ensured for accused too: SC
The Supreme Court said police and prosecutors must not focus only on securing convictions. They must also ensure that innocent people do not suffer because of faulty investigations.
The bench stressed that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens.
It said justice must be served not only to victims and complainants but also to accused persons who may become victims of the justice system.
The court said it examined the trial court's judgment to highlight the failures in the investigation and urged the Uttar Pradesh government to train police officers in proper investigation procedures to prevent similar cases in the future.