Mumbai Train Blasts Case Highlights India's Presumption Of Guilt Problem

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal law. However, in reality, the system functions in a reverse manner. Rather than a presumption of innocence, our criminal justice system is premised on a presumption of guilt, unfortunately, a lifelong one. Once named as an accused in a criminal case, the presumption is that one is guilty. Though as per law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, invariably, it is the accused who have to prove themselves innocent. Wrongful conviction only reinforces the belief in that guilt. Acquittal ought to serve as a vindication of innocence, but instead has the public thinking that the guilty escaped punishment!

Most judges prefer to err on the side of caution. There is, after all, so much at stake: promotions, assignments, transfers, and post-retirement appointments. Bold judges are usually sidelined. Therefore, I cannot help but admire the courage of the Bombay High Court judges who acquitted the 12 convicted accused in the Mumbai train blasts case last Monday, after about 19 years of wrongful incarceration, taking the prosecution evidence apart threadbare. They’ve given new vigour to the term justice, and reinforced my own rapidly diminishing faith in the frail criminal justice system. The reaction from the government was predictable. Instead of an apology for this miscarriage of justice, in a move which could only be aimed at self-preservation and optics, a petition was immediately filed and moved before the Supreme Court, which has stayed the judgement to prevent it from being used as a precedent.

The purpose of trial is to arrive at the truth. Fair trial and fair investigation are fundamental rights of the accused and the victims in our criminal justice system. However, recent acquittals, especially in serious offences, have demonstrated how the state has violated this fundamental right with impunity, completely disregarding the loss of life and dignity caused to the accused, without any expression of regret, or offer of compensation to these victims of its excesses.

On July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court exonerated Kattavellai@Darekar, a coconut cutter from Tamil Nadu, in custody since 2011, sentenced to death for murder, theft and rape. The line of investigation, which pointed to the involvement of four other persons, was not pursued by the police, whose probe the Supreme Court deemed faulty. Recording that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the appellant had been in custody for years, the court observed that it was for the legislature to consider the aspect of compensation for an innocent man who had spent over 14 years in custody.

A day later, on July, 16, 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted Baljinder Kumar@Kala, incarcerated since 2014, on death row for murdering his wife, daughter, son, and sister-in-law, holding that the prosecution evidence fell short of the threshold for conviction, and observing that there were key deficiencies in the investigation. This innocent man languished in custody for 11 years.

Or take the case of Anokhilal, who was first convicted and sentenced to death for murder and sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl, in a trial conducted over two weeks. In his second trial, directed by the Supreme Court in 2019, Anokhilal was again convicted and sentenced to death. In a third trial, directed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2023, after examining the DNA analyst, Anokhilal was finally exonerated, and released in March 2024. Anokhilal had to undergo three trials, spanning 11 years to establish his innocence.

G. N. Saibaba, a wheelchair-bound former professor of Delhi University, with multiple ailments, and his co-accused, were convicted on March 3, 2017, and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. They were first acquitted by the Bombay High Court on October 14, 2022, whose order was suspended by the Supreme Court the very next day. In April 2023, the matter was remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration. In August 2023, Justice Rohit B. Deo, who had authored the first acquittal, abruptly resigned citing personal reasons. All the accused were acquitted for the second time on March 5, 2024. Saibaba died seven months later, on October 12, 2024. He had spent more than seven years in custody.

Ankush Maruti Shinde and his co-accused, poor labourers and members of a nomadic tribe, had been in custody since 2003 and 2004, sentenced to death for murder, dacoity, and gangrape. The Bombay High Court, while upholding the convictions, modified the sentence of three accused to life. In 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, and restored the death sentences of the three accused. In 2012, Ankush was declared a child in conflict with law. In 2018, the Supreme Court recalled its 2009 judgement, and directed that the matter be heard afresh. On March 5, 2019, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, acquitted all the accused as wrongly convicted, with scathing observations about the investigating agency, and directed further investigation to probe the involvement of the four persons who were identified by an eyewitness immediately after the incident. Each of the accused were directed to be paid compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for the valuable years lost in jail, and the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, was directed to identify and take action against the officers responsible for the miscarriage of justice. Five lakh is a pittance, and is no compensation to innocents for 16 years spent in jail, in sub-human conditions. Ankush was a child, while the other five persons were aged between 25 and 30 years when arrested.

In Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors. vs State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court, while acquitting six persons convicted—three of whom were sentenced to death—for the attack at the Swaminarayan Akshardham Temple in Gandhinagar, remarked on the incompetence of the investigating agency, which had arrested innocents instead of the real culprits. A petition filed in the Supreme Court in 2015 by the acquitted persons seeking compensation did not meet with success.

Shockingly, in 2018, the Supreme Court had directed payment of compensation of Rs. 50 lakh to a former scientist of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), who spent almost 50 days in custody on allegations of espionage, remarking that this was not a case where the accused had been found not guilty after trial. He had also filed a suit for compensation. Five lakh for 16 years in custody for nomadic tribals, and 50 lakh for 50 days in custody for a former scientist. Is it class, caste, religion, socio-economic condition, and one’s standing in society which makes all the difference?

In 2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while acquitting a Gond tribal arrested in 2008, and convicted of murdering his girlfriend, directed the government to pay him compensation of Rs. 42 lakh. He had spent 13 years in custody. Following this, in 2023, the Rajasthan High Court awarded Mohd. Iqbal, who had spent more than 12 years in custody, Rs. 25 lakh as compensation for wrongful prosecution, while exonerating him of his wife’s murder.

However, in most cases of wrongful conviction, no compensation is awarded.

An accused on trial has a valuable right to life, which includes the right to fair trial and fair investigation, privacy, and reputation. Given the huge pendency, and the inadequate number of judges, trials and appeals take time, and it is usually several years before a criminal trial culminates in a final judgement. In this process, the accused and their families face irreversible and irreparable losses and trauma: the deprivation of liberty, the destruction of family life, disruption of education, loss of livelihood, damage to reputation, humiliation and shame, social ostracism, loss of housing, and above all, the psychological effects of incarceration. The effects of a wrongful arrest and prosecution are lifelong.

Adjusting to life post-release poses its own challenges. In the eyes of society, wrongfully convicted accused are often regarded as “wrongfully acquitted”. Survival is an uphill task. Social and familial re-integration, finding employment, and the fear of re-arrest are some of the difficulties faced. Custodial institutions in India do not equip their inmates, especially those who have suffered long incarceration, with the skills necessary to cope with life after release.

It is noteworthy that in the US, the collection of evidence ordinarily precedes arrest, whilst in India, investigation invariably follows arrest. Individuals, especially those from the lower socio-economic class, who lack the power to fight back, are picked up and tossed into jail with little or no evidence to show for it. Caste, class, prejudice and stereotypes play a large part in this. Add to this the absolute lack of accountability of the investigation machinery and the pressure to solve crimes, and fair investigation is given a complete go-bye. Crimes can be pinned on the innocent with ease.

In India, as per the existing law, a mere Rs. 1,000 can be awarded as compensation for groundlessly arresting a person. While there are schemes to compensate the victims of crime in India, there is presently no law to compensate a wrongly prosecuted person, who is also a victim. Suing the government for damages would entail considerable expense, and could take decades. Most wrongly prosecuted individuals are just relieved to be free, unwilling to relive the trauma, live in fear, and lack the strength and wherewithal to approach the court for compensation.

While no amount of compensation can make up for the losses incurred, the constitutional courts can and must award compensation for wrongful prosecution, which amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right to life, in the absence of a wrongful prosecution compensation statute. The officers responsible must be held accountable with the same zeal shown for prosecuting the innocent, to whom the government must apologise.

(Views expressed are personal)

Rebecca Gonsalvez is an advocate practising in the Bombay High Court

Outlook Magazine’s next issue, “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”, looks at the 19 years lost of those who were in jail and those who thought justice was served, until it wasn’t. This article appears as 'Price Of A Life' in the magazine