The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the death sentence awarded in the rape and murder of a five-year-old child and ordered the trial to restart from the stage of recording the accused’s statement, citing serious procedural lapses that had compromised the fairness of the trial.In doing so, the High Court made it clear that criminal cases involving grave offences cannot be allowed to collapse either due to casual trial conduct or by resorting to mechanical acquittals. Holding that the defect in the present case was curable, the court refused to wipe out the prosecution and instead remanded the matter to the trial court to correct the error and decide the case afresh.The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur directed the Sessions Court to freshly put all incriminating material to the accused through “small, comprehensible questions”, allow him to lead defence evidence, and then pronounce a fresh judgment, while “striking a balance between Speedy Justice and Buried Justice”.What went wrong in the trialThe High Court found that the trial court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 313 of the CrPC, which obligates the court to put each incriminating circumstance separately to the accused.Instead, the trial court placed the entire testimony of the victim’s father before the accused as one composite question running into 424 words, and added, in a single line, that the victim’s mother had “also stated in similar terms”.Calling this approach legally untenable, the Bench observed: “To answer such long questions would be incomprehensible for ordinary people.”The court added that clubbing evidence in this manner was “contrary to the requirement of Section 313 of the CrPC”, which exists to give the accused a real and meaningful opportunity to explain the evidence against him.Recording its concern, the Bench said: “The prominent concern for this Court is the manner of investigation, omission in putting all the incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, and its repercussions on the trial.”Why the High Court did not acquit the accusedThe Bench declined to follow the routine course where serious procedural lapses result in outright acquittals.It drew a clear distinction between incurable illegality and defects that can be corrected without causing prejudice to either side, holding that the lapse in the present case fell in the latter category.The court held:  “Once cured, [the irregularities] shall neither cause any prejudice to the accused on delay or law nor failure of Justice to any.”On the issue of delay, the Bench noted that the murder reference had been pending since 2021 but added that, considering the average time criminal trials take to conclude in the trial courts of Punjab and Haryana, a period of five years was not extraordinary.The Bench concluded that an overall analysis showed that no prejudice would be caused to the accused merely because the incriminating circumstances were put to him after a lapse of five years.Victim’s rights and the choice of remandWhile emphasising the accused’s right to a fair trial, the court made it clear that justice to the victim could not be overlooked.The Bench cautioned: “We cannot forget the justice to the victim of the crime.”It held that this was not a case where the trial court had put all incriminating circumstances to the accused, making remand inevitable. An outright acquittal, the court observed, would have caused irreparable harm to the victim’s family and the credibility of the justice delivery system.Powers of the appellate courtThe Bench noted that an appellate court may itself put remaining incriminating material to an accused or direct the trial court to do so. However, such power could not be exercised mechanically.It held that the court must assess the nature of the evidence not put to the accused, the prejudice caused, the defence set up, and the objections raised. The accused, it added, must also be given an opportunity to lead defence evidence.What the judgment says about criminal trialsBeyond the facts of the case, the ruling lays down a broader principle on how criminal trials — particularly those involving capital punishment — must be conducted.The Bench observed: “Criminal Justice warrants meticulously following the procedural standards of proof to pin criminal liability… The yardstick of a fair criminal trial is the quality of investigation and the conduct of proceedings, as per the gold standards, rather than perfunctory completion or hurried disposal.”The court underscored that procedural safeguards are meant to ensure fairness and the sustainability of verdicts, not to provide escape routes.Final directionAccordingly, “without commenting on the case’s merits”, the High Court quashed the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence, and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court.The trial court was directed to resume proceedings from the Section 313 stage, put all incriminating evidence to the accused through small, specific questions, allow him to lead defence evidence within a reasonable time, and then pass a fresh judgment.The Sessions Court was also asked to expedite the proceedings by “striking a balance between Speedy Justice and Buried Justice.”