Supreme Court Issues Notice on Pleas by Three Acquitted Death Row Prisoners Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Conviction; Seeks Assistance of Attorney General and Solicitor General
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court will soon examine three writ petitions filed by men who were sentenced to death but later acquitted, each seeking compensation for years of wrongful incarceration.
The lead petitioner, 41-year-old Ramkirat Munilal Goud, has approached the court seeking compensation from the State of Maharashtra for spending twelve years in prison, six of which were on death row. The Supreme Court, while acquitting him earlier this year, had observed that his conviction was the result of a “flawed and tainted investigation.”
“By the time the Petitioner was released, he had spent 12 years in prison, 6 of which were on death row. The Petitioner has suffered a grave and severe violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, on account of being falsely accused of heinous offences, illegally arrested, being made the subject of an illegal and tainted investigation, unfair prosecution, and suffering 12 years of wrongful incarceration, for which the Petitioner ought to be appropriately compensated by the Respondent State as it has completely destroyed the Petitioner's life, his reputation and his family, with the latter reduced to abject penury and destitution, with the sole earner languishing in jail on false charges,” Goud’s plea states.
Another petitioner, Kattavellai, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder in Tamil Nadu, was acquitted by the Supreme Court, which noted the need for a law providing compensation to individuals wrongfully imprisoned.
The third petitioner, Sanjay, was sentenced to death in Uttar Pradesh for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl but was later acquitted after the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, observing that “there cannot be a moral conviction in law.”
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has issued notices to the States concerned on all three petitions and requested Attorney General R. Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court on the issue of compensation.
“Issue notice, returnable on 24th November, 2025. We would request the learned Attorney General or learned Solicitor General to assist this Court in these matters. Registry may, accordingly, inform both the Law Officers within a week from today along with a copy of this order,” the order reads.
Goud’s plea raises a crucial question — whether a person wrongfully convicted and imprisoned due to an illegal investigation and fabricated evidence is entitled to compensation under Article 21 for violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The petition relies on previous Supreme Court rulings that recognized a public law remedy against the State for illegal detention and miscarriage of justice.
Goud was convicted on March 8, 2019, under Sections 302, 363, 376(2)(i), and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Bombay High Court upheld his death sentence in November 2021. However, on May 7, 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding that the prosecution’s case relied on fabricated witnesses and unreliable evidence.
The judgment noted that investigators “created witnesses by way of padding because a case of sensational nature was not being solved,” and declared the arrest “illegal” as it was made “without even a shred of evidence.” The Court also observed that forensic reports were suppressed, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution.
According to the plea, the investigation was carried out by officers of the Maharashtra Police who fabricated evidence and concealed material records, resulting in Goud’s wrongful conviction. The petition maintains that the State bears absolute liability for violating his rights under Article 21.
Goud was arrested on October 3, 2013, after the disappearance of a minor girl in Thane, and remained in custody until his release on May 19, 2025. The petition states that during his imprisonment he was denied parole or furlough, and his family could not visit him.
It narrates the financial hardship endured by his wife, Savitri Devi, who mortgaged the family’s land and jewellery to pay legal expenses. His two elder children discontinued their studies, and the family lived in a hut covered with a plastic sheet. After his release, Goud reportedly borrowed small amounts to rebuild a one-room house and re-enroll his children in school. He now earns an irregular income as a daily-wage worker while repaying accumulated debts.
The petition contends that freedom alone cannot remedy the years of suffering endured and seeks monetary compensation for both financial and emotional harm. It calls for reparation, rehabilitation, and greater accountability within the criminal justice system.
It further refers to the Law Commission’s 277th Report on “Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies” (2018), which proposed the creation of a statutory scheme for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, AOR; Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv.; Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Adv.; Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv.; Ms. Madhunika Varadarajan, Adv.; Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv.; Mr. Adnan Yousuf Bhat, Adv.; Mr. J.S. George, Adv.; Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv.; Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv.; Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.; Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR; Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv.; Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv.
Case Title: Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 420 of 2025 and two connected cases
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
