SC Slams “Slipshod” UP Police Investigation, Awards ₹6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran term the prosecution “haphazard”, and directs that the judgment be forwarded to the State’s Director General of Police and Home Secretary.

(Judicial Quest News Network)

New Delhi:26, October,2026- In a ruling that scrutinises the standards of criminal investigation in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India has directed the State Government to pay ₹6 lakh as compensation to a man who spent six years in custody as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case, only to be acquitted at the conclusion of trial.

The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran described the proceedings as a travesty of justice.

It deprecated the investigation as slipshod and the prosecution as haphazard, and advised the State Police to train its officers in the proper conduct of investigations.

The Court’s Observations

The Bench noted that six years of the petitioner’s life had been taken away on the strength of a fabricated narrative resting on little more than surmise and conjecture.

It is contended that “The Petitioner who has undergone an actual sentence of about 6 years and 3 months till date has fully co-operated with the trial of the present case. In the span of last 5 years of the present trial and of about 108 dates when the present case was listed before the Ld. Trial Court, the Petitioner had sought adjournment on only 2 dates. The same is even duly noted in Para 8 of the Impugned Order itself.”

It observed that the investigation did not rise even to a rudimentary standard, and illustrated how a deficient probe can place a citizen’s life and liberty in grave peril.

Justice Chandran, authoring the judgment, stressed that the State cannot abdicate its duty to protect its citizens, particularly those facing criminal charges who are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Investigating and prosecuting agencies, the Court held, exist not merely to secure convictions by any means, but as essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, bound to ensure justice to the victim, the complainant and the accused alike.

Where an accused has been wronged by the system itself, the Court remarked, he must be recognised as a victim deserving reparation.

Factual Background

The case arose from an FIR registered in October 2019 in Agra district under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abduction in order to murder), 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner was taken into custody on November 14, 2019, and remained there thereafter.

In March 2026, while hearing his bail plea, the Supreme Court took note of his prolonged incarceration and the wholly circumstantial nature of the evidence.

It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months. The trial ended in the petitioner’s acquittal.

The Apex Court then called for the trial court’s judgment to examine how the prosecution had been conducted, and was dismayed by what it found.

Fundamental Infirmities in the Prosecution

The Court recorded that the petitioner was named neither in the FIR nor in the complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He was implicated later on the basis of CCTV footage and the alleged confession of a co-accused. That co-accused died during trial, while another accused, his mother, remained absconding. The petitioner was thus the only accused to face trial.

The Bench found several critical gaps:

CCTV footage: The footage was unclear, and was not accompanied by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Sub-Inspector who testified did not state that the complainant had identified the accused from the footage.

Electronic records: Call detail records likewise lacked the mandatory Section 65B certification.

Ransom demand: The alleged ransom demand was never reported to the police, and the Court was left without an explanation of how the three persons were identified and arrested. The footage from Kiraoli Tehsil was never proved.

“Even though the prosecution alleges that present incident had taken place in order to extort ransom from the deceased’s family, but it is admitted position that there was no ransom demand till 13.11.2019 i.e. for almost 24 days (the deceased had gone missing on 18.10.2019). The prosecution has falsely shown that there was a ransom demand made by the accused persons on 13.11.2019 but the same is completely fabricated evidence as the deceased was already dead on 19.10.2019 as per prosecution’s own version. Thus, it is highly unnatural for any person to raise any ransom demand long after they allegedly kidnapped had died and bring themselves out to light as the one who allegedly abducted the deceased knowing fully well that police would be out looking for them” said the petitioner.

The Bench expressed its displeasure at having had to spend considerable judicial time perusing the trial judgment, an exercise undertaken only to caution the State about the manner in which investigations are being conducted.

Directions Issued

The State of Uttar Pradesh shall pay ₹6 lakh to the petitioner within one month. Failing timely payment, the sum will carry interest at 18% per annum.

“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.” Court said

A copy of the order shall be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, so that officers may be educated in sound investigative procedure.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr Kartikeya Bhargava, AoR, Rajul Bhargava, Senior Advocate

For Respondents(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Bhagel, AoR Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shauriya Krishna, Adv, Ms. Shivanjalai Ralawara, Adv