Man Spent Nearly 6 Years in Jail Before Acquittal in Murder Case, SC Orders ₹6 Lakh Compensation

The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 6 lakh compensation to a man who spent nearly six years in prison as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case before being acquitted, holding that the State cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the rights of citizens presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said investigation and prosecuting agencies do not exist merely to secure convictions “by whatever means”, but are essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system and must ensure justice not only to victims, complainants and injured persons but also to the accused.

While dealing with a plea filed by Arun alias Deepak, the Bench said it had seen “such travesty of justice in many matters, but in some, so blatant and shocking".

Court found that the prosecution case was based entirely on a concocted story built on “mere surmises and conjectures”, supported by unverified electronic evidence, missing chain-of-custody documentation and an absence of even a rudimentary or scientific investigation.

Court observed that “six years have been erased from the life of a man” because of a haphazard investigation and prosecution that put his life and liberty in jeopardy.

Arun was arrested in connection with an FIR registered in Agra district in October 2019 under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 140(1), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023]. He remained in custody from November 14, 2019.

The man was not named in the FIR or in the complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). He was subsequently implicated on the basis of unclear CCTV footage and the alleged confession of a co-accused.

The co-accused died during the trial, while another accused remained absconding, leaving Arun as the sole person to face trial.

While hearing his bail plea in March 2026, Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months, taking note of his prolonged incarceration and the fact that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial subsequently ended in his acquittal.

The Supreme Court then examined the trial court's judgment and expressed dismay at the manner in which the case had been investigated and prosecuted.

The Bench found that the CCTV footage did not have the mandatory certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Electronic evidence, including call detail records, was similarly unsupported.

A prosecution version about a ransom demand was also found concocted, as no such complaint had been made to the police.

“Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out,” the Bench remarked.

Court also criticised the police for conducting a “slipshod investigation” based on “mere surmises and conjectures”, observing that this was a blatant “travesty of justice”.

“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,” the Bench said.

The Bench clarified that at the initial stage, it was only concerned with Arun's bail application, in which it had directed the trial court to complete the proceedings.

“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,” it said.

Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

It ordered the State to pay Rs 6 lakh compensation to Arun within one month. In case of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 18 per cent per annum.

Case Title: Arun @ Deepak Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: October 26, 2026