High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can direct retrial of the case but such

a direction can only be issued in very rare and exceptional circumstances.

2) In Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh SC

, on the question of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC and

the duty of the court, a two-Judge Bench opined that such a power has to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a

manifest error on point of law and there has consequently been flagrant miscarriage of justice. A mere circumstance that finding of fact recorded by the trial court which may be

in the opinion of the High Court is erroneous or incorrect,would not justify setting aside the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused.

In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)10, it has been stated that:-

“197. In the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the

accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous

position than under different jurisprudence of

some of the countries in the world. The criminal

justice administration system in India places

human rights and dignity for human life at a much

higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused

is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the

alleged accused is entitled to fairness and true

investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is

expected to play balanced role in the trial of a

crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair,

transparent and expeditious to ensure

compliance with the basic rule of law. These are

the fundamental canons of our criminal

jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity

with the constitutional mandate contained in

Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

. In Rattiram v. State of M.P.11, a three-Judge Bench

has ruled thus:-

“Fundamentally, a fair and impartial trial has a

sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object

that the accused should not be prejudiced. A fair

trial is required to be conducted in such a

manner which would totally ostracise injustice,

prejudice, dishonesty and favouritism.”

1. Yes, there is provision for retrial if it is found on a particular issue the court has not decided .

2. Howeevr in criminal cases such retrial is very rare.

3. If the conviction is bad or not supported by the evidence on record then n appeal the conviction can be turned into acquittal.

4. Since I do not now the case history I can not comment on merit of the case.

you cannot submit new documentary evidence before the HC in appeal

2)HC will not consider new documentary evidence into consideration

Lawyer failed to submit crucial documents to the court during the trial in trial court, because of the failure to submit those documents to court my brother is convicted in trial court. He appealed in district court and now he is on bail. I sincerely request to kindly tell me, is there any provision for conducting retrial in trial court and submit the necessary new evidence to court so that it will be possible for my brother to get aquitted.?

If you are able to prove before the appellate court that your lawyer failed to carry out your instruction during trial proceedings in the lower court and that he failed to argue on the basis of the evidences available in your possession or he failed to produce the evidences before the trial court which has relevance to the innocence of the accused, and if the appellate court is convinced then it may remand the case to the trial court for conducting trial on the basis of your pleadings in the memorandum of appeal.

It depends on how you convince the appellate court with proofs.

Sir our lawyer had failed to produce important documentary evidence to trial court because of which my brother got convicted. Now we have appealed to higher court. Is it possible to submit the new documentary evidence which our lawyer had failed to produce before trial court to the higher court directly so that it will be possible for my brother to get aquitted in higher court. Will the higher court take the new documentary evidence we have submitted into consideration?

Evidence is the material on the basis of which the Court can decide the case. Such evidence must be produced before the Court so that it can establish or disprove the point of contention between the parties. The Law of evidence is a very crucial piece of legislation which helps and guides the court in arriving at a conclusion with regard to the existence or non-existence of facts. The rules of evidence are necessary to bring out the truth in every case and the Court should stick to such rules. Basically, the rules of evidence are required to draw a line between relevant and irrelevant facts.

In the appeal you can also argue that the accused has a right to adduce the evidence in defence and the courts below have erred in law in denying the right of defence.

In a case decided by Supreme court recently in K Anbazhagan Vs, kARNATAKA STATE AND OTHERS, it was observed that The evidence brought on record in entirety has to be scrutinized with care and caution. It is the duty of the Judge to see that justice is appropriately administered, for that is the paramount consideration of a Judge. The said responsibility cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracized, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellate court is required to weigh the materials, ascribe concrete reasons and the filament of reasoning must logically flow from the requisite analysis of the material on record. The approach cannot be cryptic. It cannot be perverse. The duty of the Judge is to consider the evidence objectively and dispassionately. The

reasonings in appeal are to be well deliberated. They are to be resolutely expressed. An objective judgment of the evidence reflects the greatness of mind – sans passion and sans prejudice. The reflective attitude of the Judge must be demonstrable from the judgment itself. A judge must avoid all kind of weakness and vacillation. That is the sole test. That is the litmus test .