Price of a Life

The acquittal in the Mumbai blasts case shows that no amount of compensation can make up for the losses incurred. But courts must award compensation for wrongful prosecution

- Rebecca Gonsalvez

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.