It emerges from decisions, Appellate Court may direct a retrial only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice; mere lapses in investigation are not sufficient to warrant a direction for retrial; only if lapses are so grave so as to prejudice, can a retrial be directed; determination of whether a ‘shoddy’ investigation/trial has prejudiced, must be based on facts of each case pursuant to a thorough reading of evidence; it is not sufficient if accused/prosecution makes a facial argument, there has been a miscarriage of justice warranting a retrial; it is incumbent on Appellant Court, directing a retrial, to provide reason; if a matter is directed for retrial, evidence and record of previous trial is completely wiped out.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1051-1054 of 2021].

_____

What must be acknowledged is, there exists a clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation. A retrial implies, judicial process that starts after investigation of crime is complete shall be redone from start. A reinvestigation implies, authorities are once again required to collect and examine evidence in order to present charges before a Court, so that trial can commence on such freshly collected evidence.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8700 of 2023] decided on 19.12.2024.