Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition seeking compensation from the state by an individual acquitted of criminal charges. The petitioner, Banshi Dhar Shukla, sought financial restitution after his acquittal, but the Court ruled that an acquitted accused does not have a right to compensation as a human rights remedy. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi’s judgment emphasized that detention before or during a trial does not constitute a violation of human rights warranting compensation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Banshi Dhar Shukla, representing himself, argued that he should be compensated following his acquittal in a criminal case. Shukla’s case began with an FIR lodged by the CBI in 1993, based on an order from the Patna High Court. He claimed that the FIR misrepresented the investigation’s scope by referring to only two Joint Registrar Notes instead of the three notes and one Advocate letter specified by the court. Despite being convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in 2004, and having his conviction upheld by the appellate court in 2006, Shukla was acquitted in 2023 following a Criminal Revision petition. Shukla contended that his acquittal should entitle him to compensation for the wrongful detention and legal ordeal he endured.

Respondent’s Argument:

The CBI and the State’s counsel contended that the acquittal should not justify compensation. They argued that the petitioner was found guilty by multiple courts, and the revisional court’s decision to acquit him did not alter the fact that he was lawfully detained based on the evidence and judgments of earlier courts. The respondents maintained that the acquittal alone did not meet the criteria for compensation and that there was no legal precedent or obligation for the state to provide compensation in such cases.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, delivering the judgment, highlighted that there is no explicit right to compensation for acquitted individuals under major human rights treaties. The Court emphasized that detention before or during a trial does not inherently violate human rights in a manner that warrants compensation. Justice Dwivedi clarified that the principles governing compensation are not triggered merely by an acquittal.

The Court underscored that compensation claims for wrongful detention or trial are typically addressed at the time of judgment, and there is no legal obligation for the state to provide compensation solely based on an acquittal. Justice Dwivedi noted that an acquittal is granted when the prosecution’s evidence fails to support a conviction, and this outcome alone does not create grounds for compensation. The Court further emphasized that the legal system does not mandate compensation for every case where an acquitted individual seeks financial restitution after a conviction has been overturned.

The judgment concluded that no interference was warranted in the present case as the acquittal did not establish a basis for compensation under the law. The Court dismissed Shukla’s petition, maintaining the position that compensation claims must be substantiated by evidence of human rights violations or legal miscarriages beyond the scope of an acquittal.