Sections 27 & 65B Evidence Act Flouted | Police Cannot Jeopardise Liberty On Surmises: Supreme Court Awards ₹6 Lakh Reparation To Acquitted Undertrial Jailed For 6 Years

"The investigation and prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means bring in a conviction. They should recognize themselves to be essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring justice, not only to the victim, the de facto complainant and the injured but also to the accused." Supreme Court, in a scathing ruling dated October 26, 2026, held that investigating and prosecuting agencies do not exist merely to secure convictions "by whatever means" and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation of ₹6,00,000 to an acquitted man who spent six years in custody as an undertrial.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran termed the matter 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." Emphasizing statutory compliance under Sections 27 and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court underscored that the State must provide reparation when an innocent citizen's liberty is erased by a probe built on mere conjectures.

The petitioner, Arun @ Deepak, approached the Supreme Court seeking bail after languishing in jail since November 14, 2019, as an undertrial in connection with FIR No. 367 of 2019 registered at P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By an earlier order dated March 23, 2026, the Apex Court had directed the Trial Court to conclude the circumstantial evidence-based trial within three months. Following the completion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges, prompting the Supreme Court to call for the records and examine the gross investigative lapses that caused an innocent man to lose six years of his life.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether an acquitted undertrial is entitled to monetary compensation and reparation from the State when subjected to prolonged incarceration due to a slipshod, concocted, and baseless police investigation. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the prosecution can rely on alleged discoveries and electronic evidence when statutory requirements under Section 27 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are entirely breached.

Absence Of Section 27 Evidence Act Compliance Vitiates Alleged Recoveries

The Supreme Court highlighted fatal procedural illegalities in the alleged recoveries relied upon by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner. The bench observed that the seized articles belonging to the deceased were recovered either from the house of a deceased co-accused or open areas, without attributing any exclusive concealment or disclosure to the petitioner.

The Court noted that neither did the police record a statutory statement regarding concealment under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, nor did the witnesses testify that the accused led the police to the discovery. The bench observed that "PW1’s evidence itself is that the police had led himself and the accused to the spot from which they recovered the various items belonging to the deceased... neither was a statement regarding concealment recorded from the accused, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, nor was it deposed by the witnesses or the I.O that it was the accused who led them to the place from which seizures were made."

Failure To Produce Section 65B Certificate Renders Electronic Evidence Inadmissible

Examining the electronic evidence marshalled against the petitioner, the bench found that the prosecution's case suffered from incurable evidentiary infirmities. The investigation had pivoted entirely on blurry CCTV footage from Tehsil Kiraoli and Call Detail Records (CDRs) of certain mobile numbers.

The Court underscored that the electronic evidence was legally worthless because the prosecution failed to produce mandatory supporting certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The bench recorded that the CCTV footage was illegible and incapable of establishing identity, while the investigating officer made no effort whatsoever to verify the registered subscribers of the SIM cards associated with the CDRs.

Corpus Delicti And Forensic Evidence Left Unsubstantiated

The Court expressed shock at the absolute absence of scientific investigation concerning the charred bones recovered near a drain, which were alleged to be the remains of the victim. The Senior Radiologist (PW2) had categorically testified that the time and cause of death could not be ascertained.

The bench pointed out that despite bones being dispatched for forensic examination, the prosecution failed to produce any DNA report or match the remains with the DNA of the deceased's father. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the recovered skeletal remains, rendering the entire narrative surrounding the alleged burning of the corpse with petrol unproved and scientifically hollow.

Extra-Judicial Confession And Last Seen Theory Unproven

The bench concurred with the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove any of the four projected circumstantial links: the ransom demand, the custodial confessions, the last-seen theory, and electronic evidence. The Court held that confessions made to police officers are strictly inadmissible in law.

The Court observed that the alleged ransom demand and extra-judicial confession made to the informant were never reported to the police initially and were introduced for the first time during the trial. The bench observed that the accused were never identified by the informant prior to their arrest, leaving the Court "in the dark as to how the three persons were identified as the accused and arrested."

"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."

Investigating Agencies Owe Duty Of Fairness To Accused Persons

Castigating the police machinery for demonstrating a conviction-at-all-costs mindset, the Supreme Court declared that investigating authorities cannot function as persecutors while disregarding constitutional safeguards and the presumption of innocence.

The bench stressed that prosecuting agencies must recognize their institutional role within the criminal justice architecture. The Court observed that "the State cannot shirk from its responsibility to protect its citizens, especially when a person arraigned in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty," adding that agencies must ensure justice not only to victims and complainants but equally to the accused.

Award Of Reparation And Institutional Directions To State Police

Holding that blatant and shocking travesties of justice demand state accountability, the Apex Court held that the petitioner was a direct victim of a compromised system and was entitled to monetary reparation for the unconstitutional deprivation of his liberty.

The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹6,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner within one month, failing which the amount would attract interest at the rate of 18% per annum. To address structural deficiencies, the bench directed that a copy of its judgment be served upon the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to ensure police officers are properly educated on the statutory processes of criminal investigation.

Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court held that the State must bear financial liability when slipshod and concocted police investigations illegally deprive citizens of their personal liberty. The judgment establishes an authoritative precedent holding investigating agencies accountable for subverting the evidentiary mandates of Sections 27 and 65B of the Evidence Act and reaffirms that the presumption of innocence is an inviolable constitutional safeguard.

Date of Decision: 26 October 2026