Pulling up the Uttar Pradesh Police for a “slipshod investigation” that led to a man spending six years in custody as an undertrial in a murder case, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 26, 2026) directed the State government to pay him ₹6 lakh as “reparation”.
It directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police and the Home Secretary.
The court said the State police would “do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation”.
“We come across such travesty of justice in many matters, but in some, so blatant and shocking, as in this case, which requires reparation to the accused, who in turn is a victim of the system. “Six years have been erased from the life of a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures… The investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means, bring in a conviction. They should recognise themselves to be essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring justice, not only to the victim, the de facto complainant and the injured but also to the accused,” the Bench added.
We, hence, direct the State to pay an amount of ₹6,00,000, though paltry in comparison to the years spent in custody, within a period of one month to the petitioner herein,” the Bench directed, adding that any delay in payment beyond the stipulated period would attract interest at 18% per annum.
The top court was hearing a plea by the undertrial, who had challenged an order of the Allahabad High Court denying him bail in a kidnapping and murder case registered in Agra in 2019. He had been in custody since November 14, 2019. “It is unfortunate that despite no evidence against the petitioner herein, he was imprisoned for six years as an undertrial. Based on a slipshod investigation, a haphazard prosecution was carried out, which resulted, fortunately, in the acquittal of the accused. We cannot but deprecate the manner in which the investigation was carried out and the prosecution conducted,” a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed. The court also pointed to glaring gaps in the investigation. The results of the forensic examination of the bones were also not disclosed, nor was a DNA sample taken from the victim’s father to determine whether the remains were those of his son. The CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, too, was not supported by the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
The top court took upon itself to examine the trial court judgment, following which, the Bench said it was “appalled” by the manner in which the investigation had been carried out. It described the proceedings as a “classic case of how an investigation should not be proceeded with”, resulting in the prosecution putting a person’s life and liberty in jeopardy.
It noted that the motorcycle recovered from the spot where charred bones of the supposed murder victim were found was never produced before the trial court, and its ownership was not established.
