Directing the state government to pay ₹ 6 lakh within a month, the court effectively awarded ₹

Directing the state government to pay ₹ 6 lakh within a month, the court effectively awarded ₹

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 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. 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 case concerned a kidnapping and murder registered in October 2019 in Agra district.

“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.

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. 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.

He remained in custody from November 14, 2019, while the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.