Presumption of innocence is a fundamental right, and wrongful prosecution entitles victims to compensation under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, highlighting a need for legislative reform on this issue.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

These writ petitions have been preferred by the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.33/1996 on the files of the I Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (for short, the trial court). The said case arose out of Crime No.205/1994 of Guruvayoor Police Station. W.P. (C). No.23349/2013 has been filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, and W.P.(C). No.23348/2013 has been filed by the accused No.4. There were nine accused altogether. As the accused No.3 was absconding, the case against him was split up. The accused No.6 died pending trial and the charge against him stood abated. The remaining accused faced trial. The trial court convicted the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 148, 449 read with 149 of the IPC, Section 324 read with 149 of the IPC, Section 326 read with 149 of the IPC and Section 302 read with 149 as well as 147 of the IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, including life imprisonment. The accused, Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were acquitted.

2. The accused, Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, challenged the conviction and sentence before this Court in Crl. Appeal No.195/1997. The accused No.4 preferred Crl.M.C No.2492/1998 to order further investigation in the case on the ground that during the investigation of two other crimes (Crime No.220/1996 of Mathilakam Police Station and Crime No.165/1995 of Vadanappally Police Station), it was revealed that some other persons have actually committed the crime in S.C.No.33/1996. This Court heard and disposed of Crl. Appeal No.195/1997 as well as Crl.M.C No.2492/1998 together. It was found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that PWS 1 to 5, who were the eyewitnesses, identified the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt was given to them, and they were acquitted. So far as Crl. M.C. filed by the 4th accused was concerned; it was held that no further investigation could be ordered since it was filed based on a newspaper report. However, it was made clear that if it is revealed during the investigation in Crime No.220/1996 of Mathilakam Police Station and Crime No.165/1995 of Vadanappally Police Station that some other persons have committed the offence in Crime No.205/1994 of Guruvayoor Police Station (S.C.No.33/1996), the Government is at liberty to order appropriate investigation for securing the ends of justice.

3. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to give a direction to the 6^th respondent to conduct further investigation in Crime No.205/1994 of Guruvayoor Police Station as well as in Crime No.220/1996 of Mathilakam Police Station and Crime No.165/1995 of Vadanappally Police Station. There is a further prayer to give directions to respondents Nos.1 to 3 to conduct an enquiry as to under whose instruction the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners have also sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) for the damages allegedly suffered by them due to the wrongful prosecution and conviction.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Shaijan C. George and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution Sri. Grashious Kuriakose.

5. The acquittal of the petitioners vide the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.195/1997 has become final. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that, based on the direction of this Court in the judgment in Crl. M.C.No.2492/1998, further investigation was ordered in Crime No.205/1994 of the Guruvayoor Police Station. On 13.8.2024, the Deputy Superintendent of Police-II, Crime Branch, Thrissur, who conducted further investigation in Crim