The Madras HC on Thursday directed to install KIOSK machines in all the prisons and to include the Tamil language for the purpose of enabling the prisoners to access the same. The Court passed the order in the background that a man has to spend 9 months in jail even after acquittal.

The bench of Justice Sunder Mohan noted that since the man was not aware of his rights, he had not preferred an appeal and he was not even aware of his acquittal. Thus, it was necessary for the court to come to the aid of such persons.

The court thus directed the state to pay an interim compensation of 3,50,000 rupees to the man. The court also noted that the man was at liberty to file for damages, if he is entitled for more compensation.
In the present case, the petitioner’s son Chokkar was convicted as second accused in a murder case along with one Mayilraj. When Mayilraj preferred an appeal, his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted. The court noted that since Chokkar was also convicted on similar grounds, he was also entitled for acquittal.

However, since neither the petitioner nor his son Chokkar were aware of their rights or about the directions issued by the court. Thus, Chokkar continued to be in jail.

Though the authorities, in their counter had submitted that release was not done since the court order did not specify Chokkar’s name, they agreed that same was not a ground or excuse to keep detaining Chokkar. The authorities also assured the court that strict action had been taken against the officials in-charge.

The court highlighted that Chokkar was entitled to compensation as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rudul Shah v State of Bihar and ordered as such.

The court also asked for a status report with respect to setting up of user friendly kiosks in prisons so that prisoners can check their case status. The court also sought for status report with respect to appointment of advocates as legal aid counsels to appraise the prisoners of their rights and further assist them in obtaining reliefs.

Case Title: Rathinam v State