Criminal trial -  Defective trial  - (i) the framing of charges is egregiously erroneous and not in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC; or (ii) the courts below failed to record appropriate findings with respect to the various offences which the accused are said to have committed; or (iii) the 1st appellate court's reasoning in declining to reverse a finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is defective?  - We should have recorded a conclusion that there is a failure of justice in the case on hand looked at from the point of view of either the victims or even from the point of view of the convicted accused - The most normal consequence thereafter should have been to order a fresh trial, but such a course of action after a lapse of 26 years of the occurrence of the crime, in our opinion, would not serve any useful purpose because as already indicated some of the accused have died in the interregnum - We are not sure of the availability of the witnesses at this point of time - Even if all the witnesses are available, how safe it would be to record their evidence after a quarter century and place reliance on the same for coming to a gist conclusion regarding the culpability of the accused? -  That the only course of action available to this court is that the victims of the crime in this case are required to be compensated by the award of public law damages in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa & Others, (1993) 2 SCC 746 - In the circumstances, the families of each of the deceased should be paid by the State an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) each and the injured witnesses, if still surviving, otherwise their families are required to be paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- ( Rupees Ten Lacs Only) each. 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.