The Allahabad High Court has recently pointed out that the government seldom accepts the recommendations made by Law Commissions, despite the considerable public funds, time, and effort dedicated to these reports.

The court noted that only about one-third of these recommendations have been implemented by the government.

Additionally, addressing the broader issue of wrongful prosecution, the high court expressed concern over the government's failure to act on the recommendations outlined in the Law Commission’s 277th report. This report notably suggested establishing a statutory mechanism to provide compensation for individuals wrongfully imprisoned, which would include financial support for victims and accountability measures for instances of wrongful prosecution.

The court emphasized that the 277th Report of the Law Commission should have been adopted by the government, as trial courts often convict defendants in serious offenses due to apprehensions about higher court interventions, even in clear cases where acquittal is warranted.

It said, "The trial judges are fearful of wrath of the higher courts in such cases and only to save their personal reputation and carrier prospects such judgment and order of conviction are passed".

The court emphasized that innocent individuals often endure the trauma of unjust incarceration for several years while waiting for their bail applications to be approved or their criminal appeals to be resolved by the High Court or Supreme Court. 

Highlighting this "unfortunate side" of the judicial system, the high court referenced the case of *Virendra Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others*, decided on September 12, 2024. The bench suggested that, in such situations, the state could provide financial compensation to those wrongfully accused. 

This support would not only offer some relief to the victims but also help them avoid becoming a burden on their families after being exonerated from false charges.

"As yet the government has not implemented the recommendations of 277th report of Law Commission hence violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for wrongly prosecuted and punished would continue unabated. Even in the much hyped Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 there is nothing in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for such unfortunate ones," the bench underscored. 

The court made these observations while allowing a criminal appeal from a man convicted in 2010 of dowry-related murder for the death of his wife. Justices Siddharth and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi found the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction.

In a detailed 27-page judgment, Justice Siddharth noted that key prosecution witnesses, including family members of the victim, retracted their statements during the trial, asserting instead that the woman's death was accidental. Initially, the prosecution claimed that the man and his parents had pressured his wife for dowry, leading to her fatal burns.

The trial court sentenced the man to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and five years under Section 316 for allegedly causing the death of a fetus, along with a fine. However, upon appeal, the high court identified serious shortcomings in both the evidence and the trial procedure. 

Witnesses testified that the woman suffered from hysteria, which may have led to her accidentally setting herself on fire while cooking. Medical reports revealed carbon particles in her bronchi, indicating accidental burns rather than intentional harm. The prosecution's narrative regarding a cloth found in the woman’s mouth was also inconsistent; witnesses suggested it had been placed there by bystanders to prevent flies from entering her mouth post-mortem, contradicting claims that it had been forcibly inserted.

The court observed that the prosecution witnesses did not consistently support the dowry allegations, raising significant doubts about the conviction. Moreover, it criticized the trial court for improperly applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which can shift the burden of proof onto the accused only after the prosecution has established a strong case. The high court noted that the trial court had wrongly presumed guilt without sufficient direct evidence linking the man to his wife's death.

Additionally, the court highlighted procedural flaws, notably that the man was not informed when his charges were altered from dowry death to murder late in the trial. This change violated his right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Sections 216 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandate that defendants be given an opportunity to respond to any changes in charges.

Ultimately, the high court allowed the man's appeal and overturned the trial court's conviction.