In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has directed the Haryana government to compensate three individuals who were wrongfully sentenced in a murder case, awarding them Rs 5 lakh each for their unjust imprisonment.
The controversy arose when the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them of murder—despite lacking the legal authority to do so in a revision petition. The State had not challenged their acquittal, but the victim’s father filed a revision plea, leading to their wrongful conviction. As a result, the three men, now in their 60s and 70s, were subjected to over three months of rigorous imprisonment before being granted bail—nearly 20 years after they had initially been cleared of charges.
The Supreme Court condemned the High Court’s overreach, calling it a grave miscarriage of justice. The ruling, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, emphasized that judicial actions must not harm innocent individuals and reaffirmed that courts have the power to grant compensation when someone is unlawfully deprived of their liberty. The judgment drew on key precedents, including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, underscoring the fundamental principle that wrongful judicial actions should not inflict irreparable damage.
Additionally, the Supreme Court issued a scathing critique of the public prosecutor’s conduct, highlighting the dangers of politically motivated appointments. The ruling warned that favoritism and nepotism in appointing legal officers undermine the justice system, stressing that State Governments must prioritize merit and legal expertise over political considerations.
Rejecting the State’s argument that the revision plea could be treated as an appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that a High Court cannot reverse an acquittal in a revision petition. It ruled that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows victims to appeal an acquittal, does not apply retroactively. The Court further criticized the procedural lapses, pointing out that while legal aid counsel was assigned to assist the court, the accused were not given access to necessary case documents, further violating their rights.
Acknowledging that judges, too, can make errors under the pressure of heavy caseloads, the Court held that legal officers have a duty to correct such mistakes. It placed full responsibility on the State Government for the wrongful conviction and mandated compensation to the affected individuals. The ruling also warned that failure to pay the compensation within the stipulated time would lead to further legal consequences for the officials responsible.
With this verdict, the Supreme Court not only rectified a grave judicial mistake but also sent a strong message on the sanctity of due process, the role of legal professionals, and the accountability of the State in upholding justice.