Source: https://advocatetanmoy.com/2017/05/06/criminal-trial-in-india/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:40:16+00:00

Document:
a. Every judgment must mandatorily have a preface showing the name of the parties and an appendix showing the list of Prosecutions Witnesses, Prosecution Exhibits, Defence Witnesses, Defence Exhibits, Court witnesses, Court Exhibits and Material Objects.
b. Witnesses/documents/material objects be assigned specific nomenclature and numbers.
The High Court would not be incorrect or acting out of jurisdiction if it exercises its power under Page 34 34 Art.226 to issue appropriate writ or direction or order in exceptional cases at the behest of a person accused of an offence triable under the Act or offence jointly triable with the offences under the Act. wherever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, it has been held by this Court as under: “. Since the validity of “sanction” depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority “not to sanction” was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.” Sanction is void on the ground of non- application of mind and is not a legal and valid sanction.
in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab,which case is relied upon in the case of Ajit Singh(supra) this Court observed as under : “Before adverting to the facts to have been narrated by the accused as recorded in the two confessional statements, it deserves to be noticed that in case the recording officer of the confessional statement on administering the statutory warning to the accused forms a belief that the accused should be granted some time to think over the matter, it becomes obligatory on him to grant reasonable time for the purpose to the accused. In other words, the cooling time that is granted has to be reasonable. What time should be granted would of course depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, however, when the time to think over is granted that cannot be a mere farce for the sake of granting time.
Delay in recording statements of accomplices and confessional statements of the accused persons-the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.Swarnalatha & Ors., wherein even 26 days delay in recording statements of prosecution witnesses was not allowed by this Court , Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of Punjab.
Suppression of material witness draws an adverse inference against the prosecution-Tulsiram Kanu v. The State, Ram Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P. and State of U.P. v. Punni & Ors.
Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra v. K.S. Dalipsinghji, wherein this(SC) Court had further stated with regard to the combined effect of Sections 133 and 114, Illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and held that corroboration must connect the accused persons with the crime.
Alternative stories put forth by the prosecution-Even the prosecution was not certain as to which of the three versions was true. It was submitted that therefore, in the presence of these major discrepancies in the prosecution story, and the non reliability of the confessional statements of the accused persons, they were entitled to acquittal.
The evidence of the accomplices cannot be used to corroborate the confessional statements of the accused persons in the absence of independent evidence and the delay of more than one year in recording their statements causes us to disregard their evidence.
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. V. State of West Bengal, this Court held as under: “ A retracted confession of a co-accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of finding corroboration for the retracted confession of an accused.

References: Art.226
 Art. 226
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.