Acquitted Accused In A Criminal Case Cannot Claim Compensation As Human Rights Remedy: Jharkhand HC

In this case, the Petitioner had initially been convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi in 2004, and this conviction was upheld by the appellate court in 2006. However, a Criminal Revision petition in 2023 led to his acquittal. Following this acquittal, he sought compensation and requested that appropriate directions be issued.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said, “The major human rights treaties do not provide an explicit right to compensation for the acquitted accused, an acquitted accused in a criminal case cannot claim compensation as human rights remedy because detention before or during a trial does not violate their human rights. A criminal case accused is entitled to an acquittal, if the prosecution’s evidence is too weak to support a conviction. More importantly, there is no indication that states compensate the acquitted accused because they are under a legal obligation to do so. The Court has no discretion in this matter.”

The petitioner, who represented himself, argued that an FIR had been filed by the CBI in 1993 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, based on an order from the Patna High Court. He contended that the FIR referenced only two Joint Registrar Notes related to forgery, whereas the CBI was directed to investigate allegations mentioned in three Joint Registrar Notes and one Advocate letter.

Advocate Anil Kumar appeared for the respondents.

The Court further clarified, “It is well known that if any person is convicted and subsequently acquitted that cannot be a ground for compensation and if a case of compensation is made out, the learned Court who is passing the judgment can pass such order at the time of judgment.”

The Court ultimately dismissed his petition, finding no grounds for interference.

Cause Title: Banshi Dhar Shukla v. Union of India & Anr.

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates Anil Kumar, Chandana Kumar, Ravi Prakash Mishra