Supreme Court rejects retrial order in 2007 murder case, says procedural errors cannot invalidate 17-year-old trial

The judge said the trial judge’s partial oversight did not constitute a “fatal” flaw that invalidated the entire trial.

NEW DELHI: It was just a minor blunder when the trial judge did not sign off on the order framing the chargesheet, but it led to a failure of the 17-year-old trial process with the Allahabad High Court ordering a retrial despite the conclusion of the case. Contrary to the opinion of the High Court, Supreme Court Zeng said that the purpose of criminal proceedings is to promote the realization of justice, not to hinder the realization of justice due to technicalities.Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said the trial judge’s negligence was not a “fatal” flaw that invalidated the entire trial and that procedural irregularities could be corrected.There were nine accused in the 2007 murder case and the trial court had framed charges in 2009 but the order was yet to be signed due to the absence of one of the accused. However, the trial of the case proceeded smoothly for 15 years, and the issue was not raised until the end of the proceedings in 2024, causing the Supreme Court to order a retrial.Referring to the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the judge said: “This Court distinguishes between fundamental illegalities and correctable procedural irregularities. The Court considers that only defects that go to the root of jurisdiction or give rise to real prejudice can invalidate proceedings, while defects of a lesser degree constitute irregularities that require proof of impartiality. The distinction between illegality and irregularities is therefore clear.”…”Setting aside the Supreme Court order, the court said: “Accepting such a belated challenge based on procedural irregularities would defeat the object of criminal proceedings, which is to further the cause of justice and not defeat it on technical grounds”. It also questioned the defendant’s conduct in raising the issue near the end of the trial and after the death of a key witness.The court said the omission of a signature from an order does not invalidate the proceedings when the court and the parties have completed the charges, recorded, read and acted. “The record unequivocally shows that the accused was fully aware of the charges and effectively rebutted the prosecution’s case. The nature of the cross-examination and the defense adopted leave no doubt that the accused was neither misled nor prejudiced,” the judge said.