Six Years as undertrial: Supreme Court orders compensation

Introduction

In Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court criticised serious deficiencies in a criminal investigation and prosecution after the petitioner spent six years in custody as an undertrial before being acquitted. The matter initially came before the Court as a bail application. After directing completion of the trial within three months, the Court examined the acquittal judgment and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹6,00,000, with interest if payment was delayed.

Facts and Procedural Background

The case arose from FIR No. 367 of 2019, registered at Police Station Achhnera, District Agra, under Section 364 read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The informant reported that his son had gone missing on 18 October 2019 after leaving his workplace at Kiraoli Tehsil. A further report referred to information that unknown persons had abducted him from the Tehsil gate.

The petitioner had not been named in the initial FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161. The Supreme Court recorded that he was arrayed as an accused on the basis of CCTV footage and the confession of a co-accused. The prosecution also relied on an alleged ransom demand, a last-seen theory, electronic evidence and recoveries of charred bones and articles said to be connected with the missing person.

By order dated 23 March 2026, the Supreme Court directed completion of the trial within three months, noting the petitioner’s custody since 14 November 2019 and that the case depended entirely on circumstantial evidence. After being informed of his acquittal, the Court called for the Trial Court’s judgment, which was in Hindi and ran to more than 100 pages, and examined its translation.

The Court’s Analysis

The Court noted that only six prosecution witnesses had been examined: the informant, a doctor, a Head Constable, a Sub-Inspector, a Circle Officer who was the Investigating Officer, and an independent witness. It found that the evidence did not establish the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

The informant testified that the accused and the mother of co-accused Lalit Kishore had demanded ₹50 lakh and threatened to kill his son if the amount was not paid. However, the informant had not reported the alleged demand or threat to the police. The Court observed that the allegation was raised for the first time in court and could not be treated as an extrajudicial confession. It also noted that the CCTV footage from Kiraoli Tehsil had not been proved.

The alleged confession made to the police could not be relied upon, and the last-seen theory had not been effectively proved. The CCTV footage was unclear, making identification of the persons travelling on the motorcycle difficult. The CCTV footage and call detail records were not supported by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The investigation also did not identify the persons in whose names the relevant SIM cards were subscribed.

The forensic evidence was deficient. Although eight bones had been examined and some ante-mortem injuries were found on the skull, the time and cause of death could not be ascertained. The forensic results were not produced at trial to establish that the bones belonged to the missing person, and no DNA sample was taken from the informant, the deceased’s father, for comparison. The motorcycle allegedly recovered from the spot was not produced at trial and its ownership was not proved.

The prosecution’s account that the deceased had been given sleeping pills, had his mouth taped shut and had suffocated was unsupported by medical evidence. The alleged place where the body was burnt was not identified for forensic examination. No evidence substantiated the alleged purchase of 55 litres of petrol in two cans, and the cans were not chemically examined. The recoveries were not proved to have been made at the instance of the accused: no statement concerning concealment was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the witnesses or Investigating Officer did not establish that the accused had led the police to the places from which the articles were seized.

The Trial Court had acquitted the petitioner after finding that none of the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had been proved: the alleged ransom demand, confession, last-seen theory and electronic evidence. The Supreme Court described the investigation as “slipshod” and the prosecution as “haphazard”, and strongly deprecated the manner in which the case had been investigated and prosecuted.

Ratio and Significance

The judgment’s central reasoning is that the prosecution’s allegations were not supported by reliable, proved evidence. The Court identified cumulative failures involving electronic evidence, inconclusive forensic material and recoveries not connected to the accused. This case-specific conclusion does not establish that every acquittal or investigative error automatically entitles an accused person to compensation.

The Court emphasised that a person arraigned in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Investigating and prosecuting agencies must seek justice for victims and complainants as well as accused persons. It recommended educating police officers in proper investigative procedures and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

Conclusion

In Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court condemned an investigation and prosecution that failed to establish the case against a petitioner who spent six years in custody before acquittal. The Court directed the State to pay ₹6,00,000 within one month, with interest at 18% per annum if payment was delayed. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and pending applications, if any, were rejected. The judgment underscores the need for diligent investigation and properly proved evidence.

Read the full judgment here: https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=133542026&type=j&order_date=2026-10-26&from=latest_judgements_order