Detention Before Or During Trial Doesn't Violate Human Rights, Acquitted Person Not Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an individual seeking compensation after being acquitted in a criminal case. The court held that an acquitted accused cannot claim compensation as a human rights remedy, as detention before or during a trial does not constitute a violation of human rights.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed,
“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.
Justice Dwivedi further noted, “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 petitioner, Banshi Dhar Shukla, who represented himself, argued that an FIR was lodged by the CBI in 1993 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. This FIR was based on an order dated August 3, 1993, from the Patna High Court. Shukla contended that the FIR referred to 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.
Shukla's conviction by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi, on June 4, 2004, was later affirmed by the appellate court in 2006. However, the appellate judgment was overturned by a Criminal Revision petition in 2023, leading to Shukla's acquittal. He sought compensation following his acquittal and requested that appropriate directions be issued.
The CBI and the respondent State's counsel argued that the revisional court's acquittal should not be grounds for compensation, particularly when the petitioner was found guilty by two other courts.
The Court dismissed the petition, noting that no case of interference was made out
Case Title: Banshi Dhar Shukla vs Union of India and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 146