Retrial after conviction requires real prejudice or failure of justice, not mere trial irregularities.

An appellate court hearing a conviction appeal must independently assess whether any irregularity in investigation or trial has actually caused prejudice or a failure of justice. A retrial under Section 386 CrPC is an exceptional remedy and cannot be ordered merely because lapses are noticed; it is justified only where the original trial is vitiated by serious illegality, irregularity, or real prejudice. The text distinguishes Nar Singh on the basis that the present matter did not show how the alleged lapses resulted in miscarriage of justice. On that reasoning, the High Court's direction for retrial was described as unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeals remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and directing a retrial on the basis of alleged lapses in investigation and trial, and whether such course could be adopted without recording a finding that the irregularities had caused miscarriage of justice.

Analysis: The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against conviction, is required to independently evaluate the evidence and determine whether any irregularity in investigation or trial has actually prejudiced the accused or resulted in failure of justice. A retrial is an exceptional remedy under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cannot be ordered merely because some lapses are noticed. The power to direct a de novo trial is to be exercised only where the original trial is vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity, or where omission has caused real prejudice. The decision in Nar Singh was distinguishable because that case involved failure to question the accused on important incriminating material, whereas in the present matter the High Court did not explain how the alleged lapses caused miscarriage of justice. The High Court therefore failed to apply the settled limits on ordering retrial.

Conclusion: The order of the High Court directing retrial was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits, with opportunity to all concerned, and without any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrial under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be ordered only in exceptional cases where the irregularity has caused real prejudice or failure of justice; absent such a finding, the appellate court must decide the appeal on the evidence and cannot mechanically direct a de novo trial.

---