Six Years Erased From His Life: Supreme Court Directs UP Govt. To Pay 6 Lakh As Compensation To Man Acquitted In Kidnapping & Murder Case

The Apex Court was considering a matter where the petitioner sought bail after six years of custody as an undertrial.

The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “Be that as it may, 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. ”

“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. A copy of this order will be sent to the Director General of Police and Home Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh”, it added.

Senior Advocate Rajul Bhargava represented the Petitioner while AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case was registered under Section 364 read with 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The Apex Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was languishing in jail since November 14, 2019 in a case hinging entirely on circumstantial evidence, directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months from that date. Pursuant to the same, the trial was concluded, and the petitioner was acquitted. The case was one of kidnapping and murder, and the petitioner was never named in the FIR or in the Section 161 statement. The recovery was said to have been made jointly by the two accused, which also was of charred bones; not identified as that of the missing person. The postmortem was not conclusive as to how the death was caused. This led to the judgment of acquittal.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that merely six witnesses were examined by the prosecution: the informant, the Doctor, a Head Constable, a Sub-Inspector and a Circle Officer (the Investigating Officer) and an independent witness.

The informant, PW1, was said to have reported the missing of his son, who had proceeded home from his workplace at Kiraoli Tehsil on October 18, 2019. He was said to have been travelling in his motorcycle and a further report was made on which spoke of an information that the missing person was actually abducted by unknown persons from the gate of Tehsil Kiraoli.

The Bench found that 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. More importantly, PW1 spoke of an enmity harboured by Shalini against him for implicating her son in a criminal case, which was never spoken of by PW1 to the police when he made two statements. The accused were not arrested on PW1’s pointing out and he only identified them at the Police Station after arrest as the persons who accompanied the lady who made the ransom demand. The ransom demand was never reported to the police, and the Court is kept in the dark as to how the three persons were identified as the accused and arrested, especially, when the CCTV footage from Kiraoli Tehsil was not proved”, it stated.

The Bench held that the confession of the accused could not be relied on, especially when it was made to the police. There was no last seen theory proved effectively before the Court, and it was found that the CCTV footage was not clear, making it difficult to identify the persons travelling on the motorbike. It was further noticed that the CCTV footage and the CDR were not proved with a supporting certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

“PW1’s evidence itself is that the police had led himself and the accused to the spot from which they recovered the various items belonging to the deceased, and also from the house of one of the accused; who died during trial. We emphasize this aspect since neither was a statement regarding concealment recorded from the accused, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, nor was it deposed by the witnesses or the I.O that it was the accused who led them to the place from which seizures were made”, it held.

Considering that 6 years had been erased from the life of a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures, the Bench disposed of the Petition by asking the State to pay Rs 6 lakh to the petitioner.

Cause Title: Arun @ Deepak v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1150)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajul Bhargava, AOR Kartikeya Bhargava, Advocate Jasir Aftab

Respondent: AOR Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates Ramesh Thakur, Shaurya Krishna

Click here to read/download Judgment