The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 6,00,000 compensation to a man who spent six years as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case that collapsed due to a fundamentally defective investigation. The Court deprecated the State's failure to conduct even a rudimentary probe, emphasizing that investigating agencies must ensure justice to the accused as much as to the victim.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Arun @ Deepak, was arrested in November 2019 in connection with the alleged kidnapping and murder of a young man who went missing from Kiraoli Tehsil, Agra. The case was registered as FIR No. 367 of 2019 at Police Station Achhnera under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner remained in custody for six years before the trial concluded in his acquittal. The Supreme Court, initially seized of a bail application, directed expedited trial and later examined the acquittal judgment to expose systemic investigative failures.
Key Facts
- 18.10.2019: The victim, son of PW1 (informant), left his workplace at Kiraoli Tehsil at 3:30 PM on motorcycle UP 80 DH 7692 and went missing
- 19.10.2019: Second report filed alleging abduction by unknown persons from the gate of Tehsil Kiraoli
- 13.11.2019: PW1 alleged that the petitioner, co-accused Lalit Kishore, and Lalit's mother Shalini came to his house demanding Rs 50 lakh ransom, threatening to kill the victim; they showed the victim's Aadhaar card and SBI passbook
- Night of 13.11.2019: Police arrested the petitioner and Lalit Kishore; PW1 called to police station where he identified them
- Recoveries: Bones (skull, half-burnt thigh bone, ribs, small legs bones) found near drain at Radha Rani flats; motorcycle in bushes; plastic can, Aadhaar card, SBI passbook, black bag from Lalit Kishore's house; bag, shoes, laptop, charger, registry papers from behind the house
- 20.10.2019: PW5 alleged accused purchased 55 litres petrol in two cans and burnt the body
- 22.01.2020: Charge-sheet filed; jurisdictional court took cognizance
- Lalit Kishore died during trial; Shalini remained absconding; petitioner alone faced trial
- Trial Court acquitted petitioner, finding none of four prosecution circumstances proved
Procedural History
- 14.11.2019: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 22.01.2020: Charge-sheet filed; court took cognizance
- 23.03.2026: Supreme Court directed trial court to complete trial within three months, noting petitioner's six-year custody in a circumstantial evidence case
- Trial concluded: Petitioner acquitted
- Supreme Court called for and perused translated acquittal judgment (over 100 pages in Hindi)
- 26.10.2026: Supreme Court pronounced judgment disposing SLP and awarding compensation
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner sought bail and ultimately acquittal, contending that he was never named in the FIR or Section 161 statements, that the CCTV footage was unclear, and that recoveries were not effected at his instance. The State relied on the ransom demand as extra-judicial confession, the confessions of the accused, the last seen theory based on CCTV footage, and electronic evidence (CCTV and CDR) to establish the chain of circumstances.
Relief Sought
The petitioner originally sought bail pending trial. After acquittal, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction to direct compensation of Rs 6,00,000 from the State for wrongful incarceration, payable within one month with 18% per annum interest for default.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the kidnapping and murder; (2) Whether the investigation complied with mandatory evidentiary requirements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recoveries and Section 65B of the Evidence Act for electronic records; (3) Whether the State is liable to compensate an acquitted undertrial who suffered prolonged custody due to a concocted case built on surmises and a slipshod investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that he was never named in the FIR or Section 161 CrPC statements. The CCTV footage from Kiraoli Tehsil was not proved with a Section 65B Evidence Act certificate and was too unclear to identify riders. The alleged ransom demand was never reported to police and was first stated in court, disqualifying it as an extra-judicial confession. No statement under Section 27 Evidence Act was recorded from the accused regarding concealment of recovered articles. The motorcycle was never produced in trial or its ownership proved. No DNA matching was conducted between the recovered bones and the victim's father. The CDR evidence lacked Section 65B certification and subscriber identification.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner and co-accused were seen with the victim on CCTV footage (last seen theory). The ransom demand constituted an extra-judicial confession. The confessions of the two accused and the recoveries effected at their instance established the chain of circumstances. The electronic evidence (CCTV and CDR) corroborated the prosecution case. The petitioner's presence at the recovery spots and the recovery of the victim's belongings from the co-accused's house completed the circumstantial chain.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous examination of the translated trial court judgment and identified four projected circumstances that the prosecution relied upon: (i) the ransom demand termed as extra-judicial confession, (ii) the confession of the accused, (iii) the last seen theory, and (iv) electronic evidence. Each was found fatally flawed.
"The ransom demand as found by the trial court itself was never reported to the police and it was a statement made for the first time in Court. In any event, it cannot be considered to be an extra judicial confession."
The Court held that the ransom demand, un-reported to police and first deposed in court, could not qualify as an extra-judicial confession. PW1's own evidence revealed enmity with Shalini for implicating her son in a criminal case, which he never disclosed to police. The accused were not arrested on PW1's pointing out; he identified them at the police station after arrest.
"The confession of the accused obviously cannot be relied on; especially when it is made to the police."
Police confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The last seen theory failed because the CCTV footage was categorically found unclear and insufficient to identify the persons on the motorcycle. The electronic evidence - both CCTV footage and CDR - was not proved with the mandatory Section 65B Evidence Act certificate. PW4 obtained CDR reports but made no attempt to identify SIM subscribers or produce the requisite certificate.
The Court highlighted multiple investigative failures: the alleged burning scene was never identified for forensic examination; no evidence was brought to substantiate the purchase of 55 litres petrol in two empty cans; the cans were not chemically examined; the motorcycle recovered was not produced in trial, confronted to witnesses, or its ownership proved; the FSL examination of bones was neither disclosed nor produced; no DNA sample of PW1 was taken to match the bones despite PW2's evidence that such examination was necessary; and critically, no statement under Section 27 Evidence Act was recorded from the accused regarding concealment before recovery. PW1 himself deposed that the police led him and the accused to the recovery spots.
"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."
The Court emphasized that investigating and prosecuting agencies are essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, obligated to ensure justice to the accused as much as to the victim. The State cannot shirk its responsibility to protect citizens, especially when an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 6,00,000 to the petitioner within one month. If not paid within the stipulated period, the amount shall carry interest at 18% per annum. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh for necessary action to educate investigating officers. The Court noted the compensation was paltry compared to the six years erased from the petitioner's life but served as reparation for a travesty of justice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Electronic Evidence Requires Strict Section 65B Compliance
- CCTV footage, CDR reports, and other electronic records are inadmissible without a Section 65B Evidence Act certificate
- Practitioners must object at the earliest stage to electronic evidence lacking certification
- Courts cannot rely on printouts or photos of electronic records without the statutory certificate
- The burden is on the prosecution to produce the certificate; its absence is fatal to the evidentiary value
Recoveries Must Comply with Section 27 Evidence Act
- A statement disclosing concealment must be recorded from the accused before recovery
- Police leading witnesses to recovery spots vitiates the evidentiary value of recoveries
- The motorcycle and other articles must be produced in court, confronted to witnesses, and ownership proved
- Joint recoveries from co-accused's house without the petitioner's disclosure statement are insufficient
Circumstantial Evidence Demands a Complete Chain
- Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- The chain must be so complete as to leave no reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence
- Last seen theory requires positive identification, not unclear footage
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, made to a person not obligated to report, and corroborated
- Ransom demands first stated in court, never reported to police, cannot be extra-judicial confessions
State Liability for Wrongful Incarceration
- Courts can award compensation under Article 21 for prolonged wrongful custody due to defective investigation
- The State bears vicarious liability for investigative failures of its police force
- Compensation orders serve both reparative and deterrent functions
- Directions to DGP and Home Secretary institutionalize accountability for investigative standards
