New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, October 26, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 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, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

"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," a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, in a judgment authored by Justice Chandran in Arun alias Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, IANS reported.

Source: IANS via HiIndia

Rs 6 lakhCompensation ordered, payable within one month
18% a yearInterest if the state misses the one-month deadline
6 yearsTime the petitioner spent in custody as an undertrial, from November 14, 2019

The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 367 of 2019, registered at Achhnera police station in Agra district under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, after the informant reported his son missing on October 18, 2019 while returning from Kiraoli Tehsil. He was never named in the FIR or in the informant's statement under Section 161, and was implicated on the basis of CCTV footage and the alleged confession of a co-accused, LawTrend reported. One co-accused died during the trial and another remained absconding, so he alone faced trial.

Source: LawTrend

In March 2026, while hearing his bail plea, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, noting his prolonged incarceration and that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial ended in acquittal, and the Court then called for the trial court's judgment to examine how the prosecution had proceeded, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

Examining that judgment, the Court questioned the CCTV footage relied on by police, noting it was unclear and that the electronic evidence, including call detail records, was not supported by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It also noted that a ransom demand attributed to the petitioner was never reported to the police, and said it was kept in the dark about how the accused were identified and arrested, LiveLaw reported.

Source: LiveLaw

The Court said investigating and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to secure convictions and must recognise themselves as stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring justice to the accused — who is presumed innocent until proven guilty — as well as to victims and complainants. It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, and said the state police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation, IANS reported.

Source: IANS via HiIndia