Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Man Jailed Six Years Over Slipshod Probe
NEW DELHI, October 26, 2026: The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs. 6,00,000 within one month to a man who spent six years in jail as an undertrial in a kidnapping and murder case, holding that he was arrested on a "slipshod investigation" and prosecuted in a "haphazard" manner before the trial court acquitted him. If the amount is not paid in time, it will carry interest at 18 percent per annum. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.
The answer to the headline: The Court found that the prosecution's case rested on a concocted story built on surmise. The petitioner was never named in the FIR or in any witness statement, the bones found were never identified as the missing man's, the CCTV footage and call records had no Section 65B certificate, no recovery was proved to have been made at his instance, and a ransom demand was never reported to the police. The Court called him "a victim of the system" and ordered reparation, while describing the amount as "paltry in comparison to the years spent in custody".
Case at a Glance
Case: Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1150
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran)
Offences: FIR No. 367 of 2019, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Proceeding: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4859 of 2026, filed seeking bail after six years in custody
Date: October 26, 2026
Outcome: Petition disposed of; State directed to pay Rs. 6,00,000 within one month, failing which 18 percent interest per annum
Background
A man reported his son missing on October 18, 2019 after he left his workplace at Kiraoli Tehsil on a motorcycle. A second report spoke of an abduction at the tehsil gate and of CCTV footage from cameras installed there. On the strength of that footage, police arrested two persons, the petitioner and a co-accused, on November 13, 2019. The petitioner has been in jail since November 14, 2019. A charge-sheet followed and the trial court took cognizance on January 22, 2020.
The petitioner came to the Supreme Court seeking bail after six years. On March 23, 2026, noting that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months. The trial court then acquitted him. The Supreme Court, however, called for the Hindi judgment of more than 100 pages, had it translated, and examined the record to see how the case came to be built.
How the Petitioner Became an Accused
The petitioner was never named in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was arrayed as an accused on the basis of CCTV footage and the confession of a co-accused. One co-accused died during trial and another, a woman, was absconding, so the petitioner alone faced trial.
The Prosecution's Four Circumstances
The trial court examined four circumstances projected by the prosecution and found none of them proved: (i) a ransom demand, treated as an extra-judicial confession, (ii) the confession of the two arrested accused, (iii) the last seen theory, and (iv) electronic evidence. The Supreme Court went through the record and agreed, adding its own observations on the investigation.
Issue 1: The Ransom Demand and the Alleged Confession
The informant said that on November 13, 2019 the petitioner, the co-accused and the co-accused's mother came to his house and demanded Rs. 50 lakhs, threatening to kill his son. The Court noted that this was never reported to the police and surfaced for the first time in court. It also noted that the informant spoke of the woman's enmity with him for implicating her son in a criminal case, a fact he never told the police in his two statements. The Court held that, in any event, it could not be treated as an extra-judicial confession.
"The Court is kept in the dark as to how the three persons were identified."
The accused were not arrested on the informant's pointing out. He identified them only at the police station after their arrest. The confession of an accused made to the police, the Court said, "cannot be relied on".
Issue 2: Last Seen Theory, CCTV Footage and Call Records
The trial court found that the CCTV footage was not clear and that identifying the persons on the motorbike was difficult. The footage and the call detail records were not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Sub-Inspector who obtained the footage and made photographs from it did not testify that the informant identified the accused from it. The investigators also made no attempt to identify the persons in whose names the SIM cards were subscribed.
Issue 3: The Bones, the Recoveries and the Missing Links
The bones recovered were eight in number. The doctor could not ascertain the time or cause of death, and though they were sent for DNA examination, no result was produced and no DNA sample of the informant was taken to match. The Court noted that the doctor himself said such an examination was necessary to determine identity, cause and time of death.
The motorcycle said to have been recovered from the spot was never produced in trial, put to witnesses, or proved to belong to anyone.
No statement about concealment was recorded from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and neither the witnesses nor the Investigating Officer deposed that the accused led them to the places of recovery. The informant's own evidence was that the police led him and the accused to the spot.
The recoveries were from the house of the co-accused, who died during trial, and not from the petitioner.
The Circle Officer's account of sleeping pills, a taped mouth and suffocation had no medical evidence behind it.
The purchase of 55 litres of petrol was never substantiated: the petrol pump was not identified, the cans were not chemically examined, and the place of the alleged burning was not identified for forensic examination.
Five inquest witnesses were not examined in court, and one prosecution witness did not speak of the crime or the persons involved at all.
Only six witnesses were examined: the informant, the doctor, a Head Constable, a Sub-Inspector, the Circle Officer who was the Investigating Officer, and an independent witness.
Issue 4: Compensation and Accountability
The Court said it was "unfortunate" that despite no evidence against the petitioner he was imprisoned for six years, and that it had spent its time going through the judgment "only to caution the State as to the manner in which investigations are carried out". It added that the State Police "would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation".
"Six years have been erased from the life of a man."
The Court also faulted the investigating agency for taking no steps to expedite the trial against the petitioner even though one accused was absconding and another had died. It held that investigating and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to secure a conviction by whatever means, but are essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, owing justice to the victim and to the accused alike.
What the Court Directed
The State shall pay Rs. 6,00,000 to the petitioner within one month. If not paid in time, it carries interest at 18 percent per annum.
A copy of the order shall be sent to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of and pending applications, if any, stand rejected.
What the Court Did Not Do
The Court did not frame a general compensation scheme for wrongful prosecution, did not direct action against named officers, and did not order a fresh investigation. The order is based on the facts of this case, in which the trial court had already acquitted the petitioner. It also did not describe the compensation as adequate, calling it "paltry".
What It Means Going Forward
The judgment shows the Supreme Court using a bail petition as the starting point to examine the full record, and then awarding reparation to an acquitted undertrial, rather than ending the case at acquittal.
For Accused Persons and Defence Lawyers
Gaps such as a missing Section 65B certificate, no Section 27 disclosure statement, unproved recoveries and an unreported ransom demand can unravel a circumstantial case. A long custody period followed by acquittal may justify a prayer for compensation.
For Police and Prosecutors
Identification of the body through DNA, forensic examination of the alleged place of burning, proof of purchases, certified electronic evidence and properly recorded disclosure statements are basic steps. Failing to take them can lead to acquittal and, as here, a direction to pay compensation.
For Law Students and Young Lawyers
Study how the Court tests each circumstance in a chain: extra-judicial confession, police confession, last seen, electronic evidence and recovery. The same checklist applies when you draft or oppose a bail application in a circumstantial case.
Learn Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation With Into Legal World
Judgments like this are a masterclass in testing circumstantial evidence. Into Legal World's Certificate Course in Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation teaches you to draft bail applications, cross-examine investigators and spot evidentiary gaps. Follow our WhatsApp channel for daily judgment updates.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court order in Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P.?
The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs. 6,00,000 within one month to a man who spent six years in custody as an undertrial before being acquitted, with 18 percent annual interest if delayed.
Why did the Court criticise the investigation?
The petitioner was not named in the FIR, the bones were never identified, the CCTV footage and call records lacked Section 65B certificates, no Section 27 disclosure statements were recorded, and key recoveries were not proved to be at his instance.
Can a confession made to the police be used against an accused?
The Court said the confession of an accused made to the police cannot be relied on.
Why did the Supreme Court examine the case after the acquittal?
The matter began as a bail petition. After directing a time-bound trial and learning of the acquittal, the Court called for and translated the judgment to examine how the investigation and prosecution were conducted.
Does this judgment create a general right to compensation for wrongful prosecution?
The Court awarded compensation on the facts of this case after calling the accused a victim of the system. It did not lay down a general scheme in this order.
Keywords
Supreme Court compensation wrongful prosecution, Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 1150, compensation for acquitted undertrial, Section 65B Evidence Act CCTV footage, Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, last seen theory circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, slipshod investigation, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Achhnera Agra murder case
Read the judgment: Download the PDF | Google Drive copy
Case Title: Arun @ Deepak v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4859 of 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1150
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Comments