The Supreme Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh in compensation to a man who spent six years in jail as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case before being acquitted. The Court deprecated the investigation as slipshod and cautioned the State about the way investigations are carried out.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran opened the judgment by observing, “This is a classic case of how an investigation should not be proceeded with, resulting in the prosecution putting into jeopardy a person’s life and liberty.”
Background
The petitioner, Arun @ Deepak, approached the Supreme Court seeking bail after six years in custody as an undertrial. The case arose from FIR No. 367 of 2019, registered at P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, under Section 364 read with Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. He had been in jail since 14.11.2019.
The case hinged entirely on circumstantial evidence, so by order dated 23.03.2026 the Court directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within three months. The trial concluded and the petitioner was acquitted. The Court then called for the acquittal judgment, which ran to more than 100 pages in Hindi and had to be translated. On reading it, the Bench said it was “appalled” at the manner in which the investigation was carried out.
The Court recorded that the petitioner was never named in the FIR or in the Section 161 statement. He was made an accused on the basis of CCTV footage and the confession of a co-accused. Of the other two accused, Lalit Kishore died and his mother, Shalini, was absconding, so the petitioner alone faced trial.
Supreme Court On Gaps In The UP Police Investigation
The Court noted that only six witnesses were examined. The charred bones recovered were never identified as those of the missing person. The result of the FSL examination was not disclosed at trial, and no attempt was made to match the DNA with that of the deceased’s father. The time and cause of death could not be ascertained.
The CCTV footage and CDRs were not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the trial court found the footage unclear. The motorcycle recovered was not produced at trial. No statement regarding concealment was recorded from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petrol pump where petrol was allegedly bought to burn the body was never identified, and the cans were not chemically examined.
The Court also noted that the alleged ransom demand was never reported to the police and was stated for the first time in Court. The trial court had found none of the four circumstances projected by the prosecution to be proved.
Justice Vinod Chandran wrote, “Based on a slipshod investigation, a haphazard prosecution was carried out, which resulted, fortunately in the acquittal of the accused.”
‘Victim Of The System’
Holding that the State cannot shirk its responsibility to protect its citizens, the Court observed that “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.”
It added, “The investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means bring in a conviction.” The Court said these agencies should see themselves as essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring justice to the victim, the de facto complainant and the injured, and also to the accused.
The Court found this case so blatant and shocking that it “requires reparation to the accused, who in turn is a victim of the system.”
Outcome
The Court directed the State to pay ₹6,00,000 to the petitioner within one month, describing the amount as paltry compared to the years he spent in custody. If it is not paid on time, it will carry interest at 18% per annum.
Cautioning the State about how investigations are carried out, the Court said, “The State Police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation.” A copy of the order is to be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Arun @ Deepak vs. State of U.P.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4859 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: October 26, 2026
