Supreme Court Orders Rs 6 Lakh Compensation to a man who spent six years in jail as an undertrial before being acquitted, terming the investigation and prosecution in his case a travesty of justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 6 lakh within one month to a man who remained an undertrial for six years in a kidnapping and murder case and was ultimately acquitted, observing that the case showed how an investigation should not be conducted. Failure to pay within the time will attract interest at 18 per cent per annum [Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P.].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order, authored by Justice Chandran. The Court also directed that a copy be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, and said the State Police should educate its officers in the process of investigation.
How the case reached here
The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR registered in October 2019 at Achhnera police station, Agra, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been in custody since November 14, 2019. He was not named in the FIR or in the complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was implicated on the basis of CCTV footage and an alleged confession of a co-accused, who died during the trial, while another accused remained absconding. The petitioner was the only accused to face trial.
On March 23, 2026, while considering his bail plea, the Supreme Court took note of his prolonged incarceration and the fact that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months. The trial ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court then called for the trial court’s judgment to examine how the prosecution had proceeded.
What the Court found
The Bench found the investigation deficient on several counts. The CCTV footage relied on by the police was unclear and the electronic evidence was not supported by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovered bones were not identified, the post-mortem did not establish the cause of death, no disclosure statement under Section 27 was recorded and the motorcycle said to have been used was never produced in court. The ransom demand was never reported to the police, and the Court was left in the dark about how the accused were identified and arrested.
“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.”
The State’s responsibility
The Court stressed that investigating and prosecuting agencies exist to secure justice for the victim and complainant as well as for the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“We cannot but deprecate the manner in which the investigation was carried out and the prosecution conducted… The State Police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation.”
Describing the compensation as paltry when set against the years spent in custody, the Bench directed payment of Rs 6 lakh within one month and disposed of the special leave petition.
Why the order matters
The order treats wrongful prolonged pre-trial custody as a harm the State must repair, even where the accused has already been acquitted by the trial court and no one has argued for compensation as such. It ties the remedy to the quality of the investigation, and pointedly asks the State’s police leadership to act on the lapses.
It also underlines two evidentiary basics that recur in trial courts: electronic records such as CCTV footage need the Section 65B certificate, and a case built on circumstantial evidence must connect the accused to the crime through proved links, not conjecture.
Case Title: Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No. 4859 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Kartikeya Bhargava for the petitioner; Advocate-on-Record Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocates Ramesh Thakur, Shaurya Krishna and Shivranjani Ralawata for the State