The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh compensation to a man who spent six years in prison as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case before being acquitted, strongly criticising the police investigation and prosecution as a "travesty of justice".

Criticising the slipshod investigation and haphazard prosecution that led to the six-year under-trial incarceration of the man, the Court also advised the State Police to educate their officers in the process of investigation.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, pointing out that the case demonstrated how an improper investigation could put a person's life and liberty in jeopardy.

The Court emphasized that investigating and prosecuting agencies must work to ensure justice not only for victims and complainants but also for the accused, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“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 investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means bring in a conviction. They should recognize 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. 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 Court observed.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered in October 2019 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.

He remained in custody from November 14, 2019. In March 2026, while considering his bail plea, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, taking note of his prolonged incarceration and the fact that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The trial subsequently concluded with the petitioner's acquittal. The Supreme Court then called for the trial court's judgment to examine how the prosecution had proceeded.

On examining the translated judgment, the Court expressed dismay at the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.

The petitioner had not been named in the FIR or in the complainant's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was subsequently implicated based on CCTV footage and the alleged confession of 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.

Criticizing the manner in which the investigation was carried out, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed:

“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. As we noticed at the initial stage, we were only concerned with a bail application in which the direction was issued to complete the trial which resulted in the acquittal of the sole accused, who faced trial. We spent our valuable time going through the judgment only to caution the State as to the manner in which investigations are carried out. The State Police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation.”

Significantly, the CCTV footage being relied upon by the police to connect the petitioner to the crime was questioned by the Court, as the footage was unclear and the electronic evidence, including call detail records, was not supported by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

“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 Court said.

Another concocted version presented by the prosecution about the petitioner making the ransom demand, however, no complaint was said to have been made against such a ransom demand, the Court noted.

“The ransom demand was never reported to the police, and the Court is kept in the dark as to how the three persons were identified as the accused and arrested, especially, when the CCTV footage from Kiraoli Tehsil was not proved.”, the Court said.

The Court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, asking the State Police to educate officers on proper investigation procedures.

“A copy of this order will be sent to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh.”, the Court ordered, along with a direction to the State of pay Rs. 6 lakh compensation to the petitioner within a period of one month. If the amount is not so paid within the time stipulated, it shall carry interest @18% per annum.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Shivranjani Ralawata, Adv.