SC orders Haryana to pay ₹500,000 every to three males wrongly convicted of homicide
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday directed the Haryana authorities to pay ₹5 lakh every in compensation to 3 males who have been wrongfully convicted of homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment, holding the general public prosecutor chargeable for the miscarriage of justice and highlighting systemic flaws within the appointment of prosecutors primarily based “solely on political concerns” moderately than benefit.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan overturned the Punjab and Haryana excessive courtroom’s August 2024 choice, observing that the general public prosecutor within the case failed in his responsibility to help the courtroom appropriately.
As an alternative of stating the clear authorized bar on reversing an acquittal by way of a revision petition, the prosecutor sought the dying penalty for the accused regardless of the state not having appealed in opposition to their acquittal. Whereas the excessive courtroom in the end rejected the plea for the dying penalty, the Supreme Court docket expressed its anguish over failures of authorized help that contributed to extreme judicial errors.
The case revolved round a revision petition filed by the daddy of the deceased in a 1998 homicide case, which led to the excessive courtroom overturning the trial courtroom’s acquittal of the accused. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court docket was “shocked” that the excessive courtroom reversed the acquittal right into a conviction, which is legally impermissible underneath the courtroom’s revisional jurisdiction. Accepting a competition by advocate Indira Unninayar, who represented the appellants within the matter, the bench emphasised that, at greatest, the excessive courtroom may have ordered a retrial, but it surely had no authority to convict the accused outright.
The judgment got here down onerous on the rising pattern of appointing further authorities pleaders (AGPs) and assistant public prosecutors (APPs) primarily based on political loyalty moderately than competence, warning that such appointments undermine the felony justice system and compromise the equity of trials.
“That is sure to occur when the state governments throughout the nation appoint AGPs and APPs of their respective excessive courts solely on political concerns. Favouritism and nepotism are further components compromising benefit,” mentioned the judgment, in a stern message to state authorities to make sure that public prosecutors are chosen primarily based on their authorized acumen, integrity, and skill to uphold justice.
The courtroom underscored {that a} public prosecutor shouldn’t be merely an extension of the state however an “impartial statutory authority” with an obligation to current circumstances pretty, making certain that each the prosecution and defence obtain a good listening to. It mentioned {that a} prosecutor ought to by no means act as a mere mouthpiece of the state however ought to uphold justice impartially.
“A public prosecutor shouldn’t be anticipated to point out a thirst to achieve the case to a conviction by some means or the opposite, regardless of the true details. The prosecutor should strike a good steadiness between convicting the responsible and defending the rights and freedoms of people,” the courtroom held.
Recognising that judicial errors can happen because of workload pressures, the Supreme Court docket pressured that it was the responsibility of each the defence counsel and the general public prosecutor to help the courtroom in reaching legally sound conclusions.
“Judges are human beings, and at instances they do commit errors. The sheer stress of labor might result in such errors. On the identical time, the defence counsel in addition to the general public prosecutor owe an obligation to right the courtroom whether it is falling into an error,” it famous.
Holding the Haryana authorities accountable for appointing an incompetent prosecutor, the courtroom directed it to compensate the three males who have been unjustly imprisoned for over three months earlier than being granted bail by the Supreme Court docket in December 2024. The bench famous that the appellants, who are actually of their 60s and 70s, suffered not simply wrongful incarceration but in addition irreparable harm to their repute and dignity.
“Fame of a person is an inseparable side of his proper to life with dignity,” declared the judgment, reinforcing the basic precept that the justice system should not solely punish the responsible but in addition safeguard the rights of the harmless.
The courtroom has given the Haryana authorities 4 weeks to pay the compensation, warning that failure to conform will end in acceptable motion in opposition to the accountable officers.
