At the same time, the division bench regretted that the Government did not accept the recommendations made by the Law Commission in your Report 277 (on ‘Unfair prosecution (miscarriage of justice): legal remedies’) as there are many cases where defendants accused of heinous crimes are not acquitted even though there are clear cases of acquittal.

The Court added that since the government has not yet implemented the recommendations of the 277^th report of the Law Commission, the violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by unjustly prosecuted and punished persons would continue unabated.

The Court also said that even in the highly publicized Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023there is nothing in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for such unfortunate people.

For context, the 277^th report of the Legal Commission (2018) recommended the enactment of a specific legal provision for the redress of cases of unfair prosecution, to provide relief to victims of unfair processing in terms of monetary and non-monetary compensation (such as counselling, mental health services, vocational skills development/employment, etc.) .) within a legal framework. The Commission also proposed a legal obligation for the State to compensate victims of unfair prosecution with the right to be compensated by offending officials.

In its ruling acquitting a defendant of murder, the Court expressed disappointment that a false accusation and the resulting trauma are beyond the ability of any court to compensate financially.

“A virtual death occurs in the personality of the individual prosecuted in the process, making it impossible for him to return to ordinary life with an order of acquittal. The lost years of free life cannot be returned to him or recreated to please him. He and his family suffer for the cause of the administration of criminal justice. Accident money has little role in purging the sovereign of this unforgivable sin.…Their families also go through the time- and money-consuming process of challenging the trial, which is so tedious that in itself it constitutes nothing less than a significant punishment. Sometimes the family loses all its means of survival when defending its loved one in courts of different levels,”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that if the accused are finally acquitted, they will be considered misfits in their family and in society. Their place in the family is taken by other family members, property is usurped by other family members and they are rarely considered welcome members after being imprisoned for a long time in jail.

In this regard, the Court suggested that the State could provide monetary compensation to the accused, which could provide them with some solace. After being acquitted of the unfounded charges leveled against them, they would no longer be seen as a burden to their family.

The Court made these observations while allowing an appeal by a murder accused challenging his conviction in the case.

In its 27-page judgment, the Court noted that the accused-appellant was not allowed to defend himself against the charge for which he was convicted, and the trial modified the charge even after recording the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 CrPC, that was not appropriate.

The Court also took into account that none of the prosecution witnesses in any way supported the prosecution’s arguments. Despite this, the accused was convicted by the court of first instance and had to spend about 13 years in prison before being released on bail in October 2022.

Considering the plight of these innocent people, who are unfairly prosecuted but then acquitted after years, the Court said that our justice delivery system makes little effort to set things right.

“It is true that on occasion, positive proposals in constitutional jurisdictions have addressed this issue. But no concrete judicial mechanism has yet emerged in our jurisprudence which has uniform application in cases of unfair prosecution and which can offer any redress.” the Court further observed.

The Court also noted that private law remedies for the grievance of malicious prosecution are not effective remedies for victims of unfair prosecution, given the late pace of civil litigation and the expenses, such as court costs and other litigation costs. , involved.

The Court further opined that any potential act contributing to unfair prosecution can be addressed from a criminal perspective to ensure the conviction of erring state officials and private complainants, also initiating malicious prosecutions.

In this sense, the Court referred to ‘culpable conduct’ in Chapters IX and XI of the IPC as well as useful indicators for constitutional and other civil courts to decide how unlawful prosecution occurs, particularly in the context of deviation from the direction of laws relating to investigation, inquiry, and judgment.

The division bench also stressed that instead of setting up special tribunals to deal with compensation claims proposed by the Law Commission, pragmatism and expediency demand that the task be performed by the court which acquits the accused, whether in the first instance , on appeal or on review. court.

The Court suggested that, like the provision on compensation to victims of crimes (Articles 357 and 357 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the corresponding Articles 395 BNSS and 396 BNSS), a clause may be conferred empowering the acquitting court the defendant to decide compensation claims summarily and expeditiously.

Appearanceyes

Appellant’s Counsel: Amar Singh Kashya, Ajay Sengar, SP Lal

Defendant’s lawyer: AGA I Manju Thakur

Case title – Upendra @ Balveer vs. State of UP

Case quote:

Click here to read/download the order