Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t, wrote Mark Twain in 1897 in his book ‘Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World’. In the legal world where court proceedings, trials and their outcomes often blur the lines between right and wrong, the demarcation between truth and fiction also gets obscured.
John Grisham who has authored more than 30 legal fiction thrillers recently published a nonfiction book titled ‘Framed’. The book chronicles 10 cases where people were wrongfully convicted for crimes they never committed. Anyone who has read Grisham’s previous thrillers will find the events unfolded in those fictional accounts more plausible than what has been narrated in his recent nonfiction book. And that proves the adage that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, especially in the world of law and courts.
An innocent’s 13-year ordeal
Looking at some of the criminal cases decided by the Indian courts, things don’t look much different. The most recent ‘case’ in point is ‘State of U.P. Vs. Upendra @ Balveer and Others’. On October 25, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi of Allahabad High Court acquitted a man named Balveer who was convicted under section 302 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to life by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Balveer was charged with the murder of his wife that took place in 2009. Balveer was accused of dowry harassment and was also charged under section 498-A, 304-B, 516 of IPC. He had to spend 13 years in jail before being released on bail in October 2022 and finally being acquitted last month.
Reality of ‘justice’ at the sessions court level
While the High Court highlighted many procedural flaws that did not ensure a ‘fair trial’ for Balveer, what was worth noting in the judgment was that the High Court did not mince words in critiquing the criminal trials that take place at the sessions court level.
The judgement noted, “They are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases and only to save their personal reputation and career prospects such judgment and order of conviction are passed.”
The judgment further stated, “In such cases, innocent individuals are subjected to trauma of unwanted incarceration in jail for a number of years before their bail applications are allowed or their criminal appeals are decided by the High Court/Supreme Court. If ultimately they are acquitted, they find themselves unfit in their family and society, their place in the family gets filled by other members of the family, property is usurped by the other family members and they are seldom seen as a welcome member in the family after being in long incarceration in jail.”
It observed: “A virtual death occurs to the personhood of the individual arraigned in the process making it impossible for him to come back to ordinary life with order of acquittal. The lost years of free life cannot be given back to or re-enacted to please him.”
This conviction of Balveer by the trial court was questionable on many counts. None of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case at all. The High Court also pointed out how Balveer was charged under sections 498-A, 304-B , 316 IPC and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act but convicted under sections 302 and 316 IPC. The charge was altered only at the time of judgment.
Therefore, the accused were not put to notice and was not given an opportunity of hearing regarding the altered charge under section 302 IPC. “There is no doubt about the power of the trial court of altering of charge at any stage, but it cannot be done in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the accused”, the court observed.
Who pays for miscarriage of justice?
The court also delved into the important aspect of those wrongfully convicted which is the State’s duty to compensate them.
It is important to note that the Law Commission of India in its 227th report titled ‘Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies’ submitted in 2018 delved into this issue in detail and recommended measures to compensate those wrongfully convicted. In its report, the Commission recommended the enactment of a specific legal provision for the redressal of cases of wrongful prosecution. While the report was submitted in 2018 along with a draft bill, the government is yet to enact a law in this regard.
The judgment suggests a solution. It recommends that instead of creating special courts to deal with claims for compensation as mooted by the Law Commission, “pragmatism and convenience demand that the task may be done by the court acquitting the accused, be it trial, appellate or revisional court.”
Like the provision for compensation to victims of crime (Sections 357 and 357 A Code of Criminal Procedure/ or corresponding section 395 B.N.S.S. and 396 B.N.S.S), an empowering clause can be conferred on the court acquitting the accused, to decide on claims for compensation in a summary and speedy manner.
The least that the State can do is to ensure that those wrongfully convicted, are adequately compensated and properly rehabilitated.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
