The Supreme Court on Monday slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police for carrying out a slipshod and compromised probe in a murder case, terming it an egregious example of how a criminal inquiry should never be conducted [Arun @ Deepak v. State of UP].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran censured the State police for fabricating a case without basic investigative steps.

"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 on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises and conjectures. Not even a rudimentary investigation was carried out...The investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means bring in a conviction," the Bench remarked.

It observed that the botched investigation put an innocent citizen’s life and liberty into serious jeopardy.

"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...We were appalled at the manner in which the investigation was carried out," the Bench noted.

It directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹6 lakh in compensation to the accused, one Deepak, who spent six years as an undertrial behind bars.

The development comes amid repeated strictures passed by the apex court against the UP Police over botched and compromised investigations. Last month, a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kumar had remarked that the Court might as well disband the State's police force and hand over all matters to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after flagging serious discrepancies and cover-ups in criminal inquiries.

In the present case Deepak had approached the top court seeking bail after being in custody since November 2019 in connection with an FIR registered in Agra under Sections 364 (kidnapping to murder), 302 (murder), and 201 (disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

Taking note of his prolonged custody in a case hinging entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in March this year directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months. The trial concluded in a full acquittal of Deepak, prompting the top court to call for the records to examine how the probe was handled.

According to the prosecution, the complainant's son went missing in October 2019. The father initially lodged a missing person's report, followed by a second report the next day alleging abduction based on CCTV footage. The police subsequently arrested Deepak and a co-accused, Lalit Kishore, claiming they were seen riding the two-wheeler.

During the trial, the complainant alleged that on November 13, 2019, both accused along with Kishore's mother arrived at his house demanding ₹50 lakh in ransom while brandishing the victim’s identity cards and bank passbook.

The police claimed they arrested the duo the same evening and recovered charred bones bundled in a blanket near a drain, along with the victim’s motorcycle from nearby bushes. The investigating officer further claimed that the accused had suffocated the victim with sleeping pills and tape, and subsequently bought 55 litres of petrol in two plastic cans to incinerate the body.

The Bench found that this entire theory crumbled on scrutiny. Deepak was never named in the initial FIR or in witness statements under Section 161 CrPC.

The Court further noted that the alleged ransom demand was never reported to the police and was surfaced for the first time in court. The charred bones recovered from the drain were never matched with the victim's father through DNA profiling, nor was the cause or time of death established. Electronic evidence, including the CCTV footage and call detail records, was placed on record without mandatory certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Furthermore, the Bench pointed out that the police made no attempt to locate the petrol pump from where 55 litres of fuel was purportedly purchased, failed to chemically examine the cans and never forensically inspected the alleged site of burning. The recoveries were also not supported by statutory disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court held that such systemic failure warrants direct reparation to the accused.

"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," the Bench held, noting that the ₹6 lakh compensation was "paltry in comparison to the years spent in custody."

Pulling up the authorities for the prolonged incarceration, the Bench censured the prosecution for pursuing a case devoid of evidence.

"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."

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

[Read Judgment]