While acquitting two accused persons in a murder case foisted on them by three Delhi Police officers, a city court has suggested framing of a compensation scheme for victims of motivated prosecution.
Kaushal and his brother Manoj were chargesheeted by the Aman Vihar police in North-West Delhi for kidnapping and murdering a person in 2013.
“The time has come for the State to have a scheme for compensation to such accused persons who are found to have been lodged in custody on the basis of fabricated/forged evidence,” Additional Sessions Judge Harish Kumar said, emphasising the need for giving an adequate monetary compensation.
“The power to grant compensation to the accused is not provided in the CrPC except under Sections 250 and 237... that too is limited to only ₹1,000. Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357A of the CrPC is in place but that does not cover the instant case,” the judge said.
“The State should on its own compensate both accused persons at least at the rate of minimum wages paid to unskilled labour,” said the Judge.
The Judge also ordered prosecution of the three police officers: investigating officer of the case Inspector Mahender Singh (Retd.), Sub-Inspector Vasant Kumar and Head Constable Raj Singh, and authorised the Reader to file a complaint on behalf of the court for offences punishable under Sections 193 (giving or fabricating false evidence in judicial proceeding), 194 (giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to cause any person to be convicted of a capital offence) and 196 (using in a judicial proceeding, evidence known to be false and fabricated) read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
He also directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to take appropriate action against the erring police officers.
“Prosecution witnesses Raj Singh,Vasant Kumar and Mahender Singh conspired to plant a car jack rod (with which the victim was beaten to death) upon the accused persons, fabricated and gave false evidence against the accused persons and have also committed perjury in furtherance of common intention to ensure conviction of the accused persons in their zeal to have credit of having solved the otherwise blind murder case. However, in the process they have rendered themselves completely untrustworthy and unreliable for any purpose in this case. These witness cannot be relied upon. In fact all these three witnesses deserve suitable action against them,” the judge said.
