Time for a law to compensate persons acquitted after long incarceration: Supreme Court | India News

Supreme Court (Picture credit score: ANI)

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday acquitted a man who was, on the premise of “faulty investigation, shaky evidence and non-examination of material witnesses”, concurrently convicted and awarded demise penalty by a Kerala trial courtroom and HC for murdering a younger couple in 2011, and mentioned Parliament can take a leaf out of provisions in international jurisdictions to compensate individuals acquitted after long incarceration.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta let loose Kattavellai aka Devakar, who was convicted for murdering two younger lovers after raping the woman. It discovered the investigation defective, and in addition underlined lack of professionalism in conducting the DNA check.Writing the judgment and referring to the long incarceration of the accused-convict, Justice Karol mentioned, “The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the appellant-convict has been in custody for years. In foreign jurisdictions such as the US, acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led courts to direct states to award compensation to persons who suffered behind bars, only to be eventually held innocent.“This proper to compensation has been recognised by each federal and state statutes. There are two ways in which compensation will be claimed, tort claims/civil rights fits/ethical payments of obligation and statutory claims. Given the number of statutes throughout jurisdictions, grounds for compensations/procedures range considerably. Well, it’s for the legislature to take into account this facet.”Re-appreciating the evidence and finding gaping holes in it, the 77-page judgment by Justice Karol said, “No blood was discovered on the weapon. Even the physician would not state that the accidents on the physique of the deceased may have been brought on by the identical. There is a complete disconnect with the weapon and the accidents leading to demise.”He additional mentioned, “There is not any forensic report as to the restoration of both semen or blood on the garments so recovered; the best way it was preserved and stored in whose custody.” Ordering forthwith release of the accused-convict, the bench said, “We don’t have any hesitation in holding that not one of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are discovered to be conclusively proved towards the appellant-convict.”It was this unprofessionalism of police in dealing with DNA tests that led the bench to lay down guidelines for police across states regarding handling of samples drawn from the crime scene. SC asked its registry to send a copy of the judgment containing the DNA test guidelines to DGPs of states for compliance with a direction to incorporate advanced training mechanisms in police training academies to make the personnel better equipped to collect and handle scientific evidence.