KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR versus STATE OF TAMILNADU

28. According to the prosecution, since the vaginal swabs collected from D2 show penetrative sexual assault and since the DNA found, matches that of the Appellant-convict, the factum of rape is established. The case put up by the Appellant-convict, on the other hand, is that DNA evidence, in the facts and circumstances of this case is unreliable, and therefore, the fact of rape cannot be established. The primary ground urged in this regard is concerning the chain of custody of the DNA. A sequence of events concerning DNA evidence, as per the prosecution may be useful to be noted at this stage: 19.05.2011 PW 37 (Asst. Professor Medical Department) Internal organs were sent to FSL, Madurai (Pg.128) Two Vaginal Swabs were collected and sent to FSL, Chennai. PW 56 (D.S.P CBCID) Vaginal Swabs were kept in Royappanppatti Police Station. (Pg.219) 1026 31.05.2011 PW 30 (Assistant Director FSL, Madurai) Internal Organ received in laboratory from FSL, Theni (Pg.105) PW 41 (Sub-inspector PS Cumbum) Brought internal organ of D2 to FSL, Madurai (Pg.144) Handed over the VISCERA to Doctors | and handed over to Judicial Magistrate 06.06.2011 Pw 28 (Scientific Officer) Received Wooden Box at Regional Laboratory, Madurai from Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. (Pg.100) 29.09.2011 PW 27 (Scientific Officer) After analysis the Swab, Sent the same to FSL Chennai. PW 42 (Head Constable) Collected samples from Government College took them to FSL Madurai (Pg.147) 30.11.2011 PW 34 (Asst. Director FSL, Chennai) Received Blood Stain through HC 934 Constable. (PW.48) PW 41 (Sub-inspector PS Cumbum) Received organs of body from doctor, went to Police Station and handed over to Judicial Magistrate Court. (Pg.144)

29. The first limb of considering the DNA evidence is the vagina swabs taken from D-2. PW-37 in her chief examination, stated that once she took the said samples, they were sent to FSL Madurai, for DNA test, but striking an entirely different tone in her cross-examination, she said that having taken these samples she ‘might have’ handed over the said swabs to the constable on duty. It is noteworthy to observe here itself that PW-41, who was the constable on duty, makes no such mention of having received the swabs from PW-37. PWs 52 and 54 both state that upon collection, the samples remained with PW-37 at the Government Hospital. Per contra, PW-56 states that the samples were kept at Royappanpatti Police Station. PW-42, [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu who is a police carrier, states that he collected the samples from the Government Medical College and took them to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, on 29th June, 2011. This means they were sent to the FSL after a delay of 41 days, having been taken on 19th May, 2011. The prosecution has not been able to explain the reason as to why this delay took place. We find force in the argument made on behalf of the Appellant-convict that the circumstances under which the samples were sent from FSL, Madurai to FSL, Chennai, are unclear. PW-27, who is a Scientific Officer only states that after his analysis of the swab, he sent the same to the DNA wing of the FSL Chennai. No reason is forthcoming as to why and under whose orders the same were sent to a different city. The final DNA report was prepared by PW-34. He, however, in his evidence does not mention when the samples were received by him or his office. Nor does he depose the conditions in which the sample was received. In this regard, the Appellant-convict contended that the swab itself was received by speed post. We find that to be an incorrect statement of facts. PW-34 states that the report prepared by him was DNA 152/2011. A perusal of the annexure to the DNA report24 shows the label given to the document sent by speed post as matching that of the report prepared by PW-34. So, it is clear that the report was what was sent by speed post, not the swab itself. That apart, had it actually been that the swab was sent by speed post, we would be nothing short of aghast. Time and again, this Court has emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of these samples and, the investigating authorities actually doing something so glaringly irresponsible would be an affront to any and all observations that have been made by this Court over the years.

30. Having noticed various gaps as above, the logical question that arises is where were the swabs?; why were they sent for forensic analysis belatedly?; were they properly stored?; whether the Malkhana of the Police Station where they were kept according to some of the witnesses, was sufficiently equipped or not; if the same were kept in the hospital, was it ensured that no other member of the staff could have had access to them?; in whose custody were they?; if the swabs were damaged, who shall be held responsible for the page 215 of the Appellants Convenience compilation 1028 destruction of vital evidence, etc. Similar questions arise in connection with the semen sample taken from the accused as a consequence of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, on 13th June, 2011. PW-56 states that the said samples were sent to FSL, Chennai, on 16th June, 2011 but subsequently returned. It is unclear, yet again, that between 13th and 16th June 2011 where such samples were stored; who was in charge thereof and whether he had kept them in safe custody?; how and in what condition they were sent; when and why they were returned – unfortunately, all these questions have no answer forthcoming from the record.

31. In Anil v. State of Maharashtra25 this Court observed that DNA profiles have had a tremendous impact on criminal investigations. A DNA profile is valid and reliable, but the same depends on quality control and procedures in the laboratory. We may add to this position and say, that quality control and procedures outside the laboratory matter equally as much in ensuring that the best results can be derived from the samples collected. We record with some sadness that there are quite a few cases in which DNA evidence, despite being there, has to be rejected for the reason that the manner, in which the samples were handled during and after collection by the concerned doctor, in transit to the lab, inside the lab and the results drawn therefrom, are not in accordance with the best possible practices which would focus on ensuring that throughout this process the samples remain in pristine, hygienic and biologically suitable conditions.

32. One such instance where DNA evidence had to be rejected, fairly recently, was a three-Judge Bench decision in Manoj v. State of M.P.26. The Appellants in the said case had been sentenced to death by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, for the murder in the course of the robbery of 3 women. Ultimately, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a minimum 25 years sentence; while dealing with such evidence, it made detailed references to a 2007 paper titled DNA Profiling In Justice Delivery System published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata and the previous judgments of this Court wherein the topic of DNA has been dealt with, as also the 185th report of the Law Commission (2014) 4 SCC 69 (2023) 2 SCC 353 [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu of India. In this case, DNA was rejected on the ground that recovery, which was affected, was made from an open place, and the likelihood of its contamination cannot be ruled out. It is also observed that the bloodstains found on the articles were disintegrated, and the quantity was insufficient to run any classification tests.

33. Rahul (supra) was a case concerning the kidnap, rape and murder of a woman, wherein 3 persons were convicted by the Special Fast-Track Court, Dwarka Courts in Sessions Case No.91 of 2013. These persons had kidnapped a woman as she returned from work, proceeded to do horrible things to her, and then dumped her lifeless remains in a field, from where it was discovered four days later. The DNA evidence, here, was rejected because it remained in the police Malkhana for two months and in such time, the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out. It was also held that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports or whether the techniques used had been reliably applied by the concerned expert. As such, it was concluded that the DNA profile, in the absence of such evidence, had become highly vulnerable when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination was not free from suspicion.

34. Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra27 was a case concerning the rape and murder of a 6-year-old child. Similar to the present case, it was a case of circumstantial evidence. Based on the disclosure statement made by the Appellant therein, the police found certain garments as also traces of semen of the Appellant on the vaginal smear of the minor victim, based on which he was sought to be convicted. DNA evidence had to be rejected by this Court on the grounds that there was a delay in sending the samples to the FSL, which was unexplained. It was observed that because of the delay, the concomitant prospect of contamination could not be ruled out. The need for expediency in sending samples to the concerned laboratories was underscored.

35. This case, incidentally, if not unfortunately, is another one of the like of the above. Despite the presence of DNA evidence, it has to be discarded for the reason that proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of (2023) 16 SCC 357 1030 the evidence in the course of the Appellant-convict’s conviction. DNA, as we have observed, has been held to be largely dependable, even though this evidence is only of probative value, subject to the condition that it is properly dealt with. Over the past decades, many cases have come to their logical conclusion with the aid of DNA evidence in many regions across the world. It is also equally true that many persons wrongly convicted have finally had justice served, with them being declared innocent because of advancements in this technology. It is unfortunate that, alongside such advancements, we still have cases where, despite the evidence being present, it has to be rejected for the reason that the concerned persons, either doctors or investigators, have been careless in the handling of such sensitive evidence. Circumstance Five: Motive

36. It is settled law that, in a case of circumstantial evidence as this one is, motive forms one of the chains of circumstance which can collectively point to the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution, robbery was the Appellant-convict’s motive for ending the lives of D1 and D2. On first blush, this hypothesis appears to be attractive for the reason that the robbery of gold ornaments worn by Bhagyalakshmi at the first instance, and subsequently D2, is what eventually gave way to the crimes for which he stands convicted concurrently by the Courts below. The counsel for the Appellant-convict seeks to dispel the presence of motive by stating that there were other instruments/ ornaments of the two victims, which could have been taken by the Appellant-convict and put to his own use or sold off for one sum of money or another; however, that was not the case. The ring worn by D2 and the mobile phone of D1, which undoubtedly were in their possession, were neither found in the possession of the Appellant- convict nor near the scene of the crime.

37. It has come on record that the Appellant-convict, due to various factors, had taken to crime. As we have already discussed, it is not the case of the prosecution that the said objects were taken by the Appellant-convict and then misused or sold. When the identity of the gold chain could not be unquestionably established and the fact that the other goods that were in possession of the victims at the time of the crime were also not recovered from or at the instance of the Appellant-convict, we find it difficult to ascribe any motive on his part. [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu Circumstance Six: Test Identification Parade

38. The investigating authorities conducted a test identification parade – asking PW-5 to identify the Appellant-convict from a long line of habitual offenders. He did so thrice. This has been taken as another circumstance against the convict Appellant. Before proceeding to the merits of this circumstance, let us appreciate the law on this point. 38.1 No provision of law casts an obligation upon the investigating authorities to conduct a test identification parade. If it is conducted, the provision that governs is Section 162, Cr.P.C. [See: Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.28; Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.29; Visveswaran v. State30; and Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura31.] 38.2 The onus to show that the T.I.P. has been conducted in accordance with law lies on the prosecution, and only after this burden stands prima facie discharged, does the question of considering objections in this regard arise. [See: Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand32.] 38.3 It is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its only purpose is for the investigating authorities to analyse the correctness, or lack thereof, of the direction in which they are steering the investigation. [See: Hari Nath v. State of U.P.33; and Iqbal v. State of U.P.34] 38.4 If the prosecution does not establish, by examination of witnesses to the T.I.P., and the Magistrate entrusted therewith, it cannot be said that it was conducted per law. [See: Umesh Chandra (supra).] 38.5 There is no hard and fast rule about delay in conducting T.I.P. being fatal to the case of the prosecution. In certain cases, (2005) 9 SCC 631 (2003) 5 SCC 746 (2003) 6 SCC 73 (2014) 4 SCC 747 (2021) 17 SCC 616 (1988) 1 SCC 14 (2015) 6 SCC 623 1032 relatively small delay has been considered fatal yet in others, a delay of as much as 40 days is not fatal. [See: Raja v. State35.] 38.6 The prosecution must establish that prior to the test identification parade being conducted, the witness had no opportunity to see the accused. In other words, the accused must be kept ‘baparda’. [See: Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala36; and Budhsen v. State of U.P.37.] 38.7 If the above has not been ensured, the evidence of the T.I.P. becomes inadmissible. It has also been held that if, prior to the T.I.P. the witness has the opportunity to see even the photograph of the accused person, such process becomes inconsequential. [See: Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar v. State of Maharashtra38; C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.39; and Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra40.] 38.8 Dock identification by the informant, even in the absence of T.I.P., can be accepted, but generally, as a matter of prudence, a witness’s identification of an accused in Court is sought to be corroborated by the identification by the former of the latter in previously conducted identification proceedings [Rajesh v. State of Haryana41; and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)42.] 38.9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is open for the Court to draw an adverse inference against the witness, should they put forth a refusal to participate in the identification proceedings. [See: Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi)43.]

39. It is plain as day that the above principles were not observed in the present case. We are constrained to record our astonishment as to how the Courts below considered the identification proceedings as a (2020) 15 SCC 562 (2023) 1 SCC 180 (1970) 2 SCC 128 (2007) 12 SCC 654 (2010) 9 SCC 567 (1998) 5 SCC 103 (2021) 1 SCC 118 (2017) 6 SCC 1 (2020) 7 SCC 391 [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu circumstance accruing against the Appellant-convict. It is undoubted that PW-50, in his testimony, gives sufficient detail as to the procedure followed in conducting the T.I.P., and on that count, no assault can be made thereon, however, as the preceding paragraph establishes, there are other equally crucial factors. It is a matter of record that PW-5 (the witness who participated in the T.I.P.), in his testimony, stated that about a week after he gave information to the concerned police about the incident of 14th May, 2011, he saw the Appellant- convict at the said police station. Most importantly, as has come on record, the police officials had informed him about the Appellant- convict committing the crime. As held by Budhsen (supra) as far back as the year 1970, by Suryamoorthy v. Govindaswamy44 in 1989, Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar45 in 1995, Mulla v. State of U.P46 in 2010, i.e., well before the judgment of the learned Trial Court was pronounced, that if the said witness had the opportunity to see the accused, in any form, after the incident the subject matter of testimony, but prior to the identification proceedings, it would render the same to be ineffective. Then, in our view, the courts below committed an error of elephantine proportions in considering these proceedings as forming one of the chains of circumstances against the Appellant-convict. Two Additional Points One: Other Suspects Remained Unexplored

40. Most importantly, PW-2, the father of D1 in his testimony deposed that he feared the involvement of four other persons. In order to have that possibility sufficiently explored, he filed a case before the High Court seeking transfer of the investigation to CBCID. PW-56, the Investigating Officer on behalf of the CBCID submitted that on 8th August, 2011, he recorded the statements of PW-5 (Rajkumar), Bhagyalakshmi, and suspects – Francis, Arjunan, Ambazhagan. These statements are not on record. How these statements were pursued, verified, and taken to their logical conclusion is unknown to record, more so, to the findings of the Courts below. PW-56, in his (1989) 3 SCC 24 (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 80 (2010) 3 SCC 508 1034 own deposition, also does not give any details as to what they may have said to him during his examination. Curiously, if Bhagyalakshmi had been examined by him, why her statement was not produced before the Trial Court is a question which remains unanswered. The prosecution has nowhere stated that PW-2’s suspicion on these persons was unfounded or misguided. That being the case, the non-pursuance of these suspects is a circumstance to be taken against the prosecution case. Two: Non-examination of Bhagyalakshami

41. PW-5 in his testimony states that he knew both the victims, D1 and D2 through Bhagyakshami. Undisputably, D2 and she were friends. She was obviously there at the time of the incident. She was the one who had informed PW-5 that D2 did not attend college the next day. Further, she was the one who told PW-5 that they had been murdered in suspicious circumstances which led the latter to go to the police on 20th May, 2011 and tell them his version of events on the fateful day of 14th May 2011. All of these essential happenings have a link, i.e., the lover of PW-5. Then, why she remained unexamined by the prosecution is a mystery. Still further, it has come on record, as we have noticed supra that PW-56 recorded her statement. However, how it escaped the attention of both the Courts below that the statement was not on record, is surprising. She could have given essential testimony for the last seen theory to be applied to the present case; she could have deposed as to the relationship between D1 and D2; the possibility of an elopement which formed the basis of PW-5 not approaching the authorities even after he came to know from her that D2 did not attend college. She could have further been an additional witness in the T.I.P., which would have lent credence to the prosecution case. Undoubtedly, she would have been a material witness, and her non-examination is a negative circumstance against the prosecution’s case. We are supported in our conclusion by the observations made Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing47, which are extracted as follows : “19… It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of (2001) 6 SCC 145 [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.” FAULTY INVESTIGATION

42. A common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated by way of this judgment, is that of faulty investigation. Since we have already discussed the evidence on record in detail, we may only point out various instances : The identity of the accused could not be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure well before the T.I.P. was conducted; Although there is no straight-jacket formula as to when T.I.P. can be/cannot be conducted, the delay in doing so has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case. The nine- day delay herein is entirely unexplained; Lack of coordination between investigating agencies. Bhagyalakshmi has not been arrayed as a witness, despite 1036 examination by PW-56 who is the person concerned at the CBCID. The other investigating officer did not examine her despite a clear link to the deceased persons and the star witness of the prosecution; Requisite care regarding the sensitive evidence (DNA etc.) was not taken in the slightest. There are large gaps in the chain of custody which are unexplained; Surprisingly and shockingly, we may say that the post-mortem of the deceased persons was conducted at the spot of the crime without due regard to the possibility of contamination, effect of such examination being conducted in the open, etc. None of the Courts below have found this to be objectionable; Possibility of ruling out the involvement of third party in the crime. DNA- A NECISSITATED ADDENDUM

43. As we have discussed earlier in this judgment, the DNA evidence collected has been rendered unusable. It suffers from various shortcomings in as much as there is large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc. We have also referred to instances in the recent past where, similar to the case at hand the DNA evidence was rendered unusable on account of similar lapses. A perusal of the various documents released by a number of bodies such as the Standard Operating Procedure for Crime Scene Investigation issued by the Directorate of Forensic Science Service, Ministry of Home Affairs and Government of India48; Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples issued by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science Service, Ministry of Home Affairs and Government of India49; a Forensic Guide for Crime Investigators (Standard Operating Procedures) issued by LNJN National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India50 show that, although, procedures have been suggested, there is no uniformity nor there is a http://164.100.117.138/pdfs/crime%20scene%20manual%20full_organized.pdf https://www.cfslchandigarh.gov.in/Uploads/Media/Original/20180627121024_IO-SOP%20Final.pdf https://jhpolice.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents-reports/jhpolice_ebook_a_forensic_guide_for_ crime_investigators.pdf [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu common procedure which is required to be followed by all investigating authorities. This, obviously, has the potential to have an impact on the cases investigated. When it comes to procedure followed by the police generally, differences therein are understandable keeping in view the difference in society, regional complexities as also other factors given the wide length and breadth of the Country, however, the same yardstick cannot be applied when it comes to sensitive evidence such as DNA for the concerns, causes of its dilution in evidentiary value and requirements for it to be collected and maintained in pristine condition is not subject to the same factors. So, even though ‘Police’, ‘Public Order’ are subjects mentioned in List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India that in itself cannot permit differing procedures and sensitivities to such evidence, to rule the roost. The aspects in which we find there to be errors committed regularly are in fact procedural aspects which aid the sanctity of the evidence.

44. This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved: 1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record. 2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48-hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the 1038 delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken. 3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial. 4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse. The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required. CONCLUSION

45. Consequent to the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant-convict. The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime. As a result, the conviction of the Appellant-convict is vacated. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed.

46. Recently, this Court, in a case concerning violation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 200251 and where the accused person had V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement-2024 INSC 739 [2025] 7 S.C.R.  Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu been in prolonged detention, made some observations regarding Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They are extracted below for reference : “28. Some day, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation. 29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.” Kattavellai @ Devakar has secured a clean acquittal here as well. Let it be clarified that we are not commenting as to whether the day of reckoning with this question has arrived, but we may only see that in case such an approach is adopted, we would not be breaking new ground but only affirming our commitment to the constitutional guarantee of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Law Commission of India in its 277th report titled ‘Wrongful Prosecution Miscarriage of Justice: Legal Remedies’ dealt with this issue. However, the Report confined the understanding of ‘wrongful prosecution’ to include only malicious prosecution, and the prosecution initiated without good faith. It does not, therefore, directly deal with the situation with which we are confronted. In this case, as is obvious, the accused was taken into custody, and it is the judicial process that has taken such a long time to come to a conclusion. The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand 1040 on whatsoever and yet the Appellant-convict has been in custody for years. In foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America52, acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led Courts to direct States to award compensation to the persons who suffered behind bars, only to be eventually held innocent. This right to compensation has been recognised by both Federal and State statutes. There are two ways that compensation can be claimed – tort claims/civil rights suits/moral bills of obligation and, statutory claims. Given the variety of statutes across jurisdictions grounds for compensations/ procedures vary significantly. Well, it is for the legislature to consider this aspect. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all High Courts and also the Directors General of the Police of all States to ensure necessary compliance. The Police Academies of the States are requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance with the requisite precautions and procedures in accordance with the directions issued herein above. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain M.J. Ryan, “Compensation for Wrongful Convictions in the United States” in Compensation for Wrongful Convictions – a Comparative Perspective, Jasinski and Kremens (Eds.) 2023.