Case Overview

The Supreme Court has instructed the Uttar Pradesh Government to provide him with compensation of ₹6 lakh for being arrested as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case and spending a period of almost six years in jail before his acquittal. The Court strongly condemned the lax investigation carried out by the police and poor prosecution, saying it was a travesty of justice. The Bench noted that the prosecution case was based on assumptions, conjecture and not on reliable evidence and six years of the person’s life had been lost. The Court stressed that justice must be done not just to the victim but the accused as well, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also Read – Compromise Cannot Dilute a Crime Against a Woman’s Dignity: Supreme Court on Rape, Sentencing and Appellate Duty

Factual Background

  • The case was filed under Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 364 – kidnapping, 302 – murder, and 201 – disappearance of evidence.
  • The complainant informed the police that his son had disappeared on 18 October 2019, when he was coming back from his job at Kiraoli Tehsil. Then, kidnapping charges were brought and demands for ransom were made.
  • Arun (Deepak) the petitioner, was arrested and put in judicial custody from 14 November 2019.  But, he was not mentioned in the FIR nor it was said in the initial statement made under Section 161 CrPC.
  • The prosecution’s case was based largely on circumstantial evidence, such as CCTV footage, call detail records and the discovery of charred human bones. The bones, however, did not conclusively prove to be those of the missing person, and the postmortem examination failed to identify the cause of death.
  • Supreme Court gave directions to Trial Court to conduct the trial within three months, in view of the prolonged detention. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted on the ground of lack of evidence.

Also Read – Patna High Court upheld child rape conviction, relying on consistent testimony and medical evidence despite investigation lapses

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court pointed out a number of serious defects in the investigation and prosecution.

  • For instance, unreliable witness evidence :  the prosecution called only six witnesses. To the court, the complainant had made no prior police reports to the police when he first introduced the allegation of a ransom demand. The Court doubted the veracity of this claim.
  • Non compelling proof of the accused’s involvement: The petitioner was not included in the FIR, or in the initial police statements. The prosecution also didn’t specify how the accused persons were identified and arrested.
  • In admissible electronic evidence: The CCTV footage and call detail records were not accompanied by the required certificate as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The blurry CCTV footage also did not enable the identification of the accused.
  • Improper recovery of evidence: The prosecution did not prove the way the materials were recovered, based on information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the recoveries were not found to be as helpful in establishing the connection between the petitioner and the alleged crime.
  • There was no conclusive forensic evidence: The charred bones recovered were not definitively identified as the missing person and the medical evidence did not provide any cause of death.

The Court noted that the prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstantial evidence. It condemned the investigating authorities for conducting an unscientific investigation which led to the deprivation of the petitioner’s liberty for a longer period.

In a criminal investigation justice should be fair, scientific, impartial, with respect for the rights of victims and accused persons, the Bench noted.

Decision

The Supreme Court disposed the Special Leave Petition and gave the following directions: The Uttar Pradesh Government should pay compensation of ₹6,00,000 to Arun @ Deepak. The compensation is to be paid within one month from judgement.  Interest will be charged at 18 per cent per annum for delay in payment.  A copy of the judgement shall be sent to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary of UP to emphasise the shortcomings in investigations and Court also directed appropriate training of investigating officers with the State Police to prevent any such incidents.

Conclusion

The decision in Arun @ Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the significance of a fair investigation, personal liberty and accountability in the criminal justice framework. It strengthens the life and personal freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Compensation is not meant to fill in the time that has been lost from the life of an innocent man but it can be a source of justice for the suffering endured due to cruel investigative mistakes. The decision sets an important precedent of reminding people that the aim of criminal justice is not just to punish the guilty, but to safeguard the innocent from wrongful prosecution and unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here)and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications