NEW DELHI: In a severe indictment of Uttar Pradesh police for carrying out a “slipshod investigation” that resulted in a man being in custody for six years when there was no evidence against him, Supreme Court Monday said the state cannot shirk its responsibility to protect citizens and directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 6 lakh to him.“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,” SC noted at the outset of its verdict.On Sept 30, in a separate matter, the top court had slammed UP police for not naming the accused in a road accident case.
Appalled at the way UP cops carried out probe: SC
It would be better if investigations in all criminal cases were handed over to CBI if the state police works with an agenda and does cover-up jobs, court had said, noting the accused had not been named despite the complainant catching him on the spot and handing him over to police.In the present case, a bench of J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said there was no evidence to implicate the person in a kidnapping and murder case. It noted he was never named in the FIR and police made him an accused on the basis that he was seen in CCTV footage. SC said it was “appalled at the manner in which investigation was carried out”. “It is unfortunate that despite no evidence against the petitioner, 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 probe was carried out and prosecution conducted,” SC said. “State police would do well to educate their officers in the process of investigation.”
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Making the state accountable for police’s misdeed, the court said six years have been erased from the man’s life on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures, and the state has to pay compensation.“The state cannot shirk from its responsibility to protect its citizens, especially when a person arraigned in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty. 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 SC bench said.
