Trial judges often convict innocent persons for career prospects: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently called for the introduction of a law to compensate those who are wrongly prosecuted in criminal cases upon noting that trial court judges sometimes convict innocent persons only to save face or protect career prospects [Upendra @ Balweer v. State of Uttar Pradesh].

Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made the observation while acquitting a man who was earlier accused of murdering his wife in 2009. The Court noted that the man had spent around 13 years in jail before he was even released on bail, although he ought to have been acquitted.

It expressed that he should be awarded heavy compensation, but noted that a proper legal framework to award such compensation is not in place.

"The 277th Report of Law Commission (which called for a law to address wrongful prosecution, including by setting up special courts to address such claims) ought to have been accepted by the Government since the trial courts often convict accused in case of heinous offences due to fear of higher courts even in is clear cases of acquittal. They are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases and only to save their personal reputation and (career) prospects such judgment and order of conviction are passed," the Court proceeded to observe.

In the October 25 ruling, the Court added that because the government has failed to act, violations of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution for wrongfully prosecuted persons continue unabated.

"Even in the much hyped Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 there is nothing in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for such unfortunate ones," the Court observed.

The Court went on to note that even if wrongfully convicted persons are ultimately acquitted, they find it hard to go back to society and to their families. The Court, therefore, urged the State to take corrective steps.

"The State can provide some pecuniary compensation to such accused which may provide them some solace and they would not be seen as a burden on their family after being acquitted of the unfounded charges levelled against them," the Court said.

The Court made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by a man who was earlier found guilty of murdering his wife in 2009 by a trial court in 2010.

The man was initially accused of making dowry demands, of inflicting cruelty on his wife, committing the offence of dowry death and of causing the death of an unborn child under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court later modified the charges and convicted him for the offences under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC in addition to Section 316.

The High Court, however, found that the prosecution had not even proved that allegations of dowry death or cruelty. Despite this, the trial court added a murder charge against the accused at the time of judgment, only on the ground that a two month old fetus was found inside the womb of the deceased wife.

Notably, the High Court found that the accused was not even allowed to defend himself against the newly added murder charge.

"There is no doubt that charge can be altered at any stage of the trial but in such a case, the learned trial court should give proper and fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself against the altered charge so that his interest may not be prejudiced. He must get the opportunity of fair trial," the High Court said.

The Court eventually acquitted the appellant, but did not order for any compensation to be awarded since there was no proper law enabling the same.

"Due lack of statutory framework, we are helpless. For the hundreds of innocent persons, who are wrongfully prosecuted but later acquitted after years, our justice delivery system takes little pains to make amends. True that under the public law remedy, some isolated adjudications came by way of writ jurisdiction, but it failed to shape a set formula for development of this branch of compensation jurisdiction," the Court observed.

Advocate Amar Singh Kashyap appeared for the accused appellant.

Additional Government Advocate Manju Thakur appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

[Read Judgment]