Failed conviction not necessarily malicious prosecution: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, September 21

Addressing the intricacies surrounding claims of malicious prosecution, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that every failed conviction cannot automatically translate into a claim for compensation. It is crucial to establish malicious intent.

The decision by Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj of the high court came on a petition seeking Rs 5 crore as compensation for false implication in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 201, 376 (2) (g) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for murder, rape and other offences at Sirsa city police station in September 2003. The case was registered after a woman’s body with injuries was found with hands and feet tied.

Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that the petitioner was convicted by Sirsa Sessions Judge in September 2005 before being sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner claimed he was wrongly implicated in the case, which ultimately led to his acquittal by the Supreme Court after years of legal battle.

The petitioner argued his nine years and six months of incarceration resulted in severe personal and professional setbacks. The State of Haryana and other respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner’s acquittal was based on benefit of doubt, and no malicious intent or false implication was established. They asserted that no adverse remarks were made against the investigating agency or witnesses by the Supreme Court.

Justice Bhardwaj emphasised that malicious prosecution involved wrongful and dishonest initiation of criminal proceedings with an intent to cause harm. The absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice was required to be established for a successful claim.

Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that a failure to secure a conviction did not automatically imply malicious prosecution or false implication. The burden of proof rested on the claimant to demonstrate that the prosecution was malicious or false. Additionally, the petitioner had earlier withdrawn a similar petition and was granted the liberty to explore alternative remedies, not to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.

Justice Bhardwaj ruled civil liability could not be imposed on the investigating officers without sufficient evidence to establish malicious prosecution or false implication. Investigations aimed at maintaining law and order were generally protected as sovereign functions.