The Supreme Court of India has highlighted the need for a legal framework to compensate individuals who are acquitted after দীর্ঘ incarceration, drawing attention to the miscarriage of justice that occurs when innocent people spend years in prison. The court's observation came while acquitting a man who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death based on a flawed investigation in a 2011 murder case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta overturned the conviction of Kattavellai alias Devakar, who had been found guilty of murdering a young couple. The court identified significant lapses in the investigation, including the non-examination of key witnesses and a lack of professionalism in conducting DNA tests. Justice Karol, writing the judgment, expressed concern that the conviction was fundamentally weak, yet the accused remained imprisoned for years.

The Supreme Court referenced practices in foreign jurisdictions, particularly the United States, where courts often mandate compensation for individuals acquitted after wrongful imprisonment. This compensation is recognized through federal and state statutes, with claims processed through tort claims, civil rights suits, moral bills of obligation, or statutory claims. The procedures and grounds for compensation vary across jurisdictions.

The court emphasized that it is up to the Indian legislature to consider enacting similar provisions. Re-evaluating the evidence, Justice Karol's 77-page judgment pointed out critical inconsistencies, such as the absence of blood on the alleged murder weapon and the doctor's inability to confirm that the weapon caused the victims' injuries.

This is not the first time the Indian judiciary has addressed the issue of compensation for wrongful incarceration. Previously, the Supreme Court has awarded compensation in cases of illegal arrest, detention, and death in custody. For instance, in Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, ₹50,000 was awarded for illegal arrest and detention. Similarly, in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the court established that sovereign immunity does not apply when compensating for the violation of fundamental rights.

However, there have been instances where compensation was denied, such as in Sulemenbhai Ajmeri & Ors. V. State of Gujarat, also known as the Akshardham Temple Case, even though the acquittal was based on severe prosecutorial misconduct.

Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court Justice, has also advocated for a system of compensation and reparation for those acquitted after long periods of incarceration, highlighting the mental trauma suffered by the acquitted and their families. He noted several cases where the Supreme Court granted compensation for disappearances and deaths in custody, such as the case of Nambi Narayanan, an ISRO scientist who was illegally detained and awarded ₹50 lakhs as compensation.

The Supreme Court's recent observations underscore the urgent need for a statutory framework to address the rights and needs of individuals who have suffered длительный imprisonment only to be found innocent. Such a law could provide a measure of justice and support for those who have lost crucial years of their lives due to wrongful convictions.