Six Years In Jail Before Acquittal: Supreme Court Orders UP To Pay Man ₹6 Lakh For Shoddy Probe

The petitioner was charged under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

He was not named in the missing-person report or the informant’s initial statement; the prosecution later relied on CCTV footage, an alleged ransom demand, a co-accused’s confession and recoveries of charred bones and other items.

The bones were not identified as those of the missing person, and the prosecution examined six witnesses at trial.

After the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within three months, the petitioner was acquitted.

The Court called for and reviewed the acquittal judgment, identifying substantial deficiencies in the investigation and prosecution.

The case arose from charges under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC.

The Court applied the evidentiary principles governing circumstantial cases: the prosecution must prove the circumstances relied upon, and they must support the accused’s guilt; an unproved or unclear circumstance cannot sustain a conviction.

A confession made to police cannot be relied upon as a confession, subject to the limited discovery rule under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; a recovery must be linked to information supplied by the accused that leads to discovery.

Electronic evidence, including CCTV footage and call-detail records, must be supported by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Court also reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the responsibility of investigative and prosecuting agencies to ensure justice for both the complainant and the accused.

The prosecution failed to establish the alleged ransom demand through a timely report or corroborating evidence, and it did not amount to an extra-judicial confession; the alleged police confession was inadmissible.

The CCTV footage was unclear and was not supported by a Section 65B certificate, while the call-detail records were similarly uncertified and the SIM subscribers were not identified.

The last-seen theory was not effectively proved. The bones were not matched to the deceased, the alleged cause of death lacked medical support, and the claimed burning of the body was not supported by forensic or petrol-purchase evidence.

The recoveries were not shown to have followed information from the petitioner under Section 27, and the motorcycle was neither produced nor proved to belong to the deceased.

The Court concluded that the case reflected a slipshod investigation and haphazard prosecution, resulting in six years’ custody without adequate evidence.

It directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay the petitioner ₹6,00,000 within one month; any delay would attract interest at 18% per annum.

The Court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the State’s Director General of Police and Home Secretary.