Uncover the Role of Courts in Ensuring Justice: Explore the balance between convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent, the powers of Sections 311 CrPC and 165 Evidence Act, and how flawed investigations and biased trials undermine justice in India.

The object of a criminal trial is to dispense justice by convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Therefore, the trial should be a search for the truth rather than a focus on technicalities. It must be conducted under rules that ensure the innocent are protected while the guilty are punished. Failure to provide a fair hearing to either the accused or the prosecution violates the minimum standards of due process of law.

The State has a definite role in protecting witnesses, especially in sensitive cases involving individuals in power who enjoy political patronage and wield muscle and financial influence, which can derail and taint the trial, making it a casualty of manipulation.

Courts exist to deliver justice to those affected. Trial or first appellate courts cannot be swayed by abstract technicalities or ignore factors that must be thoroughly examined.

The court is not merely a tape recorder, passively recording evidence. It must remain focused on the primary objective of the trial—ascertaining the truth. Courts must ensure that accused individuals are appropriately punished and that neither the powerful nor State authorities shield themselves or their associates from justice.

Sections 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 165 of the Evidence Act confer wide powers on presiding officers to gather all necessary material evidence. These powers enable courts to actively engage in the evidence-collection process. The authority under Section 165 of the Evidence Act complements the power granted under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Furthermore, if an appellate court deems additional evidence necessary, Sections 386 and 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be harmoniously applied to allow the appeal to be adjudicated in light of the additional evidence. Thus, when a court inadvertently omits circumstances essential to the elucidation of truth, invoking Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, becomes necessary.

If the trial court acquits the accused and the High Court upholds the acquittal, it is only valid if the acquittal is merited. However, when the acquittal is based on tainted evidence, a biased investigation, an unprincipled prosecutor, a perfunctory trial, or testimony from coerced witnesses, it holds no sanctity or credibility in the eyes of the law.

In the present case, even a cursory glance at the records reveals that the justice delivery system has been undermined, abused, and subverted. Several glaring infirmities are evident, apparent even to an ordinary person. The High Court conclusively found that the police investigation was dishonest and flawed.

This, by itself, should have justified directing a retrial. However, the High Court unnecessarily ventured into baseless conclusions, such as declaring false implications without concrete evidence, relying solely on conjecture. The High Court even went so far as to assert that the FIR was manipulated, despite lacking any solid basis for such presumptive remarks or arbitrary conclusions.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073