Supreme Court Awards Rs 5 Lakhs Compensation To Persons Who Were Wrongly Sentenced In Murder Case

The Supreme Court today (January 29) asked the State of Haryana to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs each to three accused who were illegally sentenced in a murder case.The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal of appellants and convicted them of murder. Although the State had not filed any appeal against the acquittal by the trial court, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition. Despite the High Court having no power to reverse an acquittal in revisional jurisdiction, it did so. The High Court had sentenced the appellants to rigorous life imprisonment. Noting that the appellants were unjustly subjected to rigorous imprisonment for three months before they were granted bail, the Court said:“The principle as aforesaid is now well established that in cases where there can be no dispute of facts, the constitutional courts have the power to award compensation in case a person has been deprived of his life and liberty without following the procedure established by law.,” while placing its reliance on a plethora of landmark judgments including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orisa & Ors.The Court noted that the appellants are in their 60s and 70s. 26 years after the incident, and nearly 20 years after their acquittal, the appellants were unjustly subjected to rigorous imprisonment for over 3 months, due to the impugned judgment and order.The Judgment, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, also made categorical observations about the public prosecutor's duty to assist the court in the right direction. Pertinently, an acquittal cannot be reversed in a revision petition, however, the prosecutor had instead prayed for capital punishment.“Such is the standard of the Public Prosecutors in the High Courts of the country. This is bound to happen when the State Governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective High Courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit. This judgement is a message to all the State Governments that the AGPs and APPs in respective High Courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person. The State Government owes a duty to ascertain the ability of the person; how proficient the person is in law, his overall background, his integrity etc.”Noting that the State Government appointed the prosecutor concerned, the Court, in no uncertain terms, imposed the aforesaid compensation liability on the State. It was also made clear that appropriate action will be taken against the responsible officer if the compensation is not paid within this stipulated time. For background, in the present case, the Trial Court had convicted one accused for murder, while acquitting the rest. Challenging this acquittal, the father of deceased person filed a revision petition before the High Court. The said plea was allowed and accordingly, the appellants were held guilty of murder. Against this background, the matter came before the Apex Court.The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, at the outset, explained the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit. As per this, judicial actions should not unfairly harm any party and courts should act judiciously to prevent errors causing injustice.“There is no higher principle for the guidance of the court than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied, but for that mistake.”Stating this, the Court went on to examine the submissions. The Court also perused the provisions pertaining to its High Court's revisional jurisdiction provided under CrPC. Further, Section 378 only gives the State the right to file an appeal in case of acquittal. However, in the present case, no appeal was preferred at the instance of the State.Taking a cue from this, the Court went on to highlight limits on the powers of the High Court as a Revisional Court. Decisions highlighting the accused's right to be heard in the revisional proceedings were also referred (Santhakumari & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.). In this regard, the Court also cited the Nandini Satpathy case to stress that the accused's right to consult an advocate of choice shall not be denied to any person and that lawyers' presence is a constitutional claim. In view of this, the Court opined:“Thus, it is as clear as a noonday that the High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein.”In this regard, the Court also noted that the High Court had appointed a legal aid counsel to assist the court on behalf of the revisionist, who was unrepresented. However, the court also directed that the paper...

Supreme Court Awards Rs 5 Lakhs Compensation To Persons Who Were Wrongly Sentenced In Murder Case

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags