They were denied their liberty, dignity and reputation: Kerala High Court directs State to act on compensation report | High time for implementing legal framework for wrongful prosecution
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath disposed of two writ petitions filed by former accused persons who were acquitted after being wrongfully prosecuted and convicted for a murder. The Court directed the State Government to take a decision on the recommendation of the investigating officer to grant adequate compensation to the petitioners. It also directed the government to consider initiating action against the officials responsible for their false implication. The Court held that the petitioners had been wrongly prosecuted and convicted and were entitled to seek redress for the infringement of their fundamental rights..
The writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala were filed by three individuals—accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in S.C. No. 33/1996 on the files of the I Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. The proceedings arose out of Crime No. 205/1994 registered at the Guruvayoor Police Station. In total, there were nine accused in the case. One of them (accused No. 3) was absconding, resulting in the case against him being split. Accused No. 6 died during the trial, and the proceedings against him were abated. The trial culminated in a conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9 were acquitted.
The convictions were for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449 read with 149 IPC, 324 read with 149 IPC, 326 read with 149 IPC, and 302 read with 149 IPC. The convicted individuals were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, including life imprisonment.
Subsequently, the convicted accused (including the present petitioners) challenged the conviction before the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 195/1997. In parallel, the fourth accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2492/1998 seeking further investigation on the basis of new revelations allegedly arising during the investigation of two unrelated crimes—Crime No. 220/1996 of Mathilakam Police Station and Crime No. 165/1995 of Vadanappally Police Station. These cases, it was contended, pointed to the possibility that individuals other than the accused in S.C. No. 33/1996 may have committed the offence.
Both the criminal appeal and the criminal miscellaneous case were heard together. The High Court, in its judgment delivered therein, found that the identification of the accused by key prosecution witnesses (PWs 1 to 5) lacked reliability. Consequently, the Court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them. However, the prayer for further investigation was not allowed at the time since it was predicated solely on a newspaper report. Nevertheless, the Court left open the possibility that if future investigations in the other two criminal cases unearthed evidence indicating that different individuals had committed the crime, the Government could order an appropriate investigation.
Pursuant to this direction, a further investigation was undertaken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police-II, Crime Branch, Thrissur. On 13 August 2024, a report was filed indicating that the earlier accused (including the present petitioners) were not the actual culprits in Crime No. 205/1994. The report concluded that a Muslim fundamentalist group named Jm-Iyathul Ihsaniya had perpetrated the crime, and nine members of this group were subsequently arrayed as the new accused. Of these, five were arrested while four remained absconding. The report confirmed that a draft final report had been prepared and was pending approval before submission.
Following this development, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions seeking directions to the National Investigation Agency to conduct further investigation into Crime No. 205/1994 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Crime No. 220/1996 of Mathilakam Police Station, and Crime No. 165/1995 of Vadanappally Police Station. Additionally, they sought directions to the State Government to identify the officers responsible for their false implication and to award them monetary compensation of ₹50,00,000 for the damages they allegedly suffered due to wrongful prosecution and conviction.
It was submitted that the petitioners had undergone not only the trauma of an extended criminal trial but also the social stigma and psychological hardship associated with being accused and convicted in a criminal case, despite ultimately being acquitted. The petitioners referred to various legal provisions and constitutional guarantees as grounds for their claims.
The petitioners supported their plea with Ext. P7—a communication from the investigating officer dated 29 August 2024. In this document, the officer recommended to the State Government that compensation be granted to the petitioners for the injury and suffering caused by their wrongful implication. The communication further suggested initiating appropriate legal action against the officers involved in their false prosecution.
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to compensation under public law principles as interpreted by various constitutional courts. They also pointed out that the Indian legal system currently lacks a specific statutory mechanism for compensating individuals who are wrongfully prosecuted or convicted, thereby leaving them to pursue relief under general constitutional or civil law remedies.
The writ petitions were heard finally on 19 March 2025, and the Court rendered its decision on the same day. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Director General of Prosecution were considered, particularly in light of the latest findings from the further investigation.
The Court recorded: “The acquittal of the petitioners vide the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.195/1997 has become final.” It was submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that, based on the direction of this Court in the judgment in Crl. M.C.No.2492/1998, further investigation was ordered in Crime No.205/1994 of the Guruvayoor Police Station.
The Court noted: “On 13.8.2024, the Deputy Superintendent of Police-II, Crime Branch, Thrissur, who conducted further investigation in Crime No.205/1994 (renumbered as Crime No.296/CB/TSR/17), filed a report.” It was stated in the report that further investigation revealed that the previously accused persons (including the petitioners) in Crime No.205/1994 were not the real culprits and that the crime was actually committed by a Muslim fundamental group, namely Jm-Iyathul Ihsaniya. The Court noted: “The nine members of the said group were arrayed as the accused.” Five of them were arrested and four were found to be absconding.
It was further stated: “A draft final report has been prepared and submitted to the ADGP Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, through proper channels, and the final report will be filed soon after getting approval from the ADGP Crime Branch.”
The Court stated: “Thus, now, in further investigation, it has come out that the petitioners were falsely implicated in Crime No.205/1994, and they were not at all the actual culprits.” It recorded: “They had to undergo the trauma of trial for a pretty long period, and ultimately, they were acquitted, which has become final.”
The Court observed: “Punishing an innocent is a serious miscarriage of justice. It undermines the rule of law.” Citing Maimonides and Blackstone, it recorded: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once.” and “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers.”
The Court referred to international legal instruments and recorded: “The principle of presumption of innocence is widely recognized as a fundamental aspect of fair trial rights and is enshrined in various international legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).” It noted: “The Indian Constitution implicitly recognizes the presumption of innocence, notably in Article 21.”
Citing Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, the Court stated: “The presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Article 14(2) of the ICCPR.” It further noted: “The presumption that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt acts as a shield against wrongful convictions.”
On the question of rights under the Constitution, the Court observed: “Basic human rights protections against unlawful prosecutions, illegal detentions, arrests, wrongful convictions, etc., are guarantees available to every person under the umbrella of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”
The Court quoted Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P and Others: “If an innocent person is falsely implicated, he not only suffers from loss of reputation, but also mental tension and his personal liberty is seriously impaired.”
It was recorded: “Internationally, the issue of wrongful prosecution, incarceration, and conviction of innocent persons is identified as a ‘miscarriage of justice’.” The Court quoted Article 14(6) of the ICCPR: “When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed… the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law…”
The Court noted: “In India's legal framework, there is no specific statute governing the grant of compensation to persons wrongfully prosecuted or convicted.” It further stated: “The remedy available to a wrongly prosecuted or convicted person is the private law remedy by instituting a suit against the State before the ordinary civil court, claiming damages based on tort.”
The Court observed: “A claim in public law for compensation is an acknowledged remedy for the enforcement and protection of such rights.” It referred to Khatri v. State of Bihar, Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, and noted the development of public law remedies for wrongful prosecution and conviction.
The Court recorded: “Acquitting victims of wrongful conviction does not redeem the State from its liability to pay compensation.”
The Court also referred to S. Nambi Narayanan v. Sibi Mathews and Mahabir and Others v. State of Haryana, and noted: “It is now well settled that the Constitutional Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to direct the State to award monetary compensation…”
The Court finally observed: “They had to suffer the ignominy of unlawful prosecution and wrongful conviction. They were denied their liberty, dignity and reputation as they were branded as criminals till they were acquitted.”
In these circumstances, these writ petitions can be disposed of with directions to the Government to take an appropriate decision on the compensation entitled by the petitioners based on the recommendations of the investigating officer. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:
The 1st respondent is directed to take a decision on the recommendation made by the investigating officer as stated in Ext.P7 to grant adequate compensation to the petitioners for their false implication in Crime No. 205/1994 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The 1st respondent shall also take a decision on the recommendations of the investigating officer to take appropriate action against the officers who were responsible for the false implication of the petitioners in Crime No.205/1994.
The petitioners are free to approach this Court or to initiate appropriate legal action of their choice if they are aggrieved by the decision of the Government on the recommendation of the investigating officer to grant compensation to them and to initiate appropriate action against the officers who were responsible for falsely implicating them in the crime.
The petitioners are also entitled to initiate suitable legal action if they are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Shaijan C. George, Smt. S. Rekha Kumari, Smt. Sajitha George, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri. Grashious Kuriakose (Senior Advocate), Sri. C.K. Suresh (Senior Advocate), Sri. M. Ajay, Advocate
Case Title: Baburajan v. State of Kerala & Others and Biji & Another v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:23471
Case Number: W.P.(C). Nos. 23348 & 23349 of 2013
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
[Read/Download order]
