NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday acquitted a man who was, on the basis of “faulty investigation, shaky evidence and non-examination of material witnesses”, concurrently convicted and awarded death penalty by a Kerala trial court and HC for murdering a young couple in 2011, and said Parliament can take a leaf out of provisions in foreign jurisdictions to compensate people acquitted after long incarceration.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set free Kattavellai aka Devakar, who was convicted for murdering two young lovers after raping the girl. It found the investigation faulty, and also underlined lack of professionalism in conducting the DNA test.Writing the judgment and referring to the long incarceration of the accused-convict, Justice Karol said, “The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the appellant-convict has been in custody for years. In foreign jurisdictions such as the US, acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led courts to direct states to award compensation to persons who suffered behind bars, only to be eventually held innocent.“This right to compensation has been recognised by both federal and state statutes. There are two ways that compensation can be claimed, tort claims/civil rights suits/moral bills of obligation and statutory claims. Given the variety of statutes across jurisdictions, grounds for compensations/procedures vary significantly. Well, it is for the legislature to consider this aspect.”Re-appreciating the evidence and finding gaping holes in it, the 77-page judgment by Justice Karol said, “No blood was found on the weapon. Even the doctor doesn’t state that the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the same. There is a total disconnect with the weapon and the injuries resulting in death.”He further said, “There is no forensic report as to the recovery of either semen or blood on the clothes so recovered; the way it was preserved and kept in whose custody.” Ordering forthwith release of the accused-convict, the bench said, “We have no hesitation in holding that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the appellant-convict.”It was this unprofessionalism of police in dealing with DNA tests that led the bench to lay down guidelines for police across states regarding handling of samples drawn from the crime scene. SC asked its registry to send a copy of the judgment containing the DNA test guidelines to DGPs of states for compliance with a direction to incorporate advanced training mechanisms in police training academies to make the personnel better equipped to collect and handle scientific evidence.