Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court is set to examine writ petitions filed by three men seeking compensation for wrongful conviction and death sentence, after they were acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The lead petitioner, a 41-year-old man, Ramkirat Munilal Goud, is seeking compensation from the State of Maharashtra for his wrongful conviction and twelve-year incarceration, six of which he spent on death row.

Notably, while acquitting him, the Supreme Court had given a finding that the conviction was based on a “flawed and tainted investigation.”

“By the time the Petitioner was released, he had spent 12 years in prison, 6 of which were on death row. The Petitioner has suffered a grave and severe violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, on account of being falsely accused of heinous offences, illegally arrested, being made the subject of an illegal and tainted investigation, unfair prosecution, and suffering 12 years of wrongful incarceration, for which the Petitioner ought to be appropriately compensated by the Respondent State as it has completely destroyed the Petitioner's life, his reputation and his family, with the latter reduced to abject penury and destitution, with the sole earner languishing in jail on false charges”, Goud's plea states.

While acquitting the second petitioner Kattavellai, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders and rape in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court had observed that there should be a law for awarding compensation in cases of wrongful incarceration.

The third petitioner, Sanjay, was acquitted after being convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder of a 3-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh, with the Supreme Court finding that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and observing that there cannot be a “moral conviction in law”.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the respective States on the three writ petitions and requested that Attorney General for India R Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assist it on the issue of compensation.

“Issue notice, returnable on 24th November, 2025. We would request the learned Attorney General or learned Solicitor General to assist this Court in these matters. Registry may, accordingly, inform both the Law Officers within a week from today along with a copy of this order”, the Court ordered.

Ramkirat Goud's writ petition raises the question of whether a person who has been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned due to an illegal investigation and fabricated evidence is entitled to compensation under Article 21 for the violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The plea invokes the Supreme Court's earlier decisions recognising a public law remedy for State liability in cases of illegal detention and miscarriage of justice.

Goud was convicted on March 8, 2019 for offences under Sections 302, 363, 376(2)(i) and 201 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to death. The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on November 25, 2021.

On May 7, 2025, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in acquitted him of all charges, holding that the prosecution's case rested on fabricated witnesses and unreliable evidence.

The Court found that the investigating officers “created witnesses by way of padding because a case of sensational nature was not being solved,” and termed the arrest of the petitioner “illegal” as it was carried out “without even a shred of evidence.” The Court also noted that certain forensic reports were withheld by the prosecution, warranting an adverse inference.

The petition asserts that the investigation was conducted by officers of Maharashtra Police who fabricated evidence, procured false recoveries, and suppressed material reports, leading to the petitioner's wrongful conviction. It contends that the State bears strict liability for the violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21.

Goud was arrested on October 3, 2013, following the disappearance of the victim girl in Thane. He remained in prison for twelve years until his release on May 19, 2025. During this period, he did not receive parole or furlough, and his children were unable to visit him, the plea states.

The petition highlights the financial and social impact of his imprisonment on his family. His wife, Savitri Devi, mortgaged their land and jewellery to fund legal expenses, the plea states. It further states that his two elder children dropped out of school, and the family lived in a hut with a plastic-sheet roof.

According to the petition, after his release, Goud borrowed ₹25,000 to build a single-room pucca house and ₹22,500 to re-enrol his children in school. He currently survives on irregular daily-wage work, earning about ₹500 a day for 10-15 days a month, while repaying old debts, the plea states.

Arguing that mere release is not sufficient to correct the wrong, the petition seeks monetary compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, to provide him reparation and rehabilitation and to ensure accountability and greater diligence by the state in its investigative and prosecutorial functions.

It relies on the Law Commission's 277th Report on Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies (2018), which recommended a statutory scheme for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution.

Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniam, Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Anitha Shenoy appeared for the petitioners. They were assisted by Advocates Mihir Samson, Shreya Rastogi, Yash S. Vijay(AOR), Khush Aalam Singh, Navleen Kaur Saluja, Pavan Bhushan, Raghav Kohli, Adnan Yousuf, J.S. George, Shikhar Aggarwal, Prateek K. Chadha(AOR), Trisha Chandran, Madhunika Varadarajan, Vishal Sinha, Adnan Yousuf Bhat, Sreekar Aechuri, Surbhi Soni, Aniket Chauhaan, Maulshree Pathak(AOR), and Kavana Rao.

The Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, provided legal assistance to all three accused in their criminal appeals.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 420 of 2025 and two connected cases.

Case Title – Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra