How prosecution messed it up

There was no proper vetting of chargesheet. If done, it would have resulted in seeking further investigation as there was not enough evidence to convince the court on the guilt of the accused. It could have intervened at the stages of hearing on charges and framing of charges.

It did not insist on the police investigating the possibility of homicidal hanging, especially since there was a suggestion in the postmortem report. It could have done till the judge pronounced the verdict.

It did not insist on a time-bound trial. Instead, it kept mum when the accused applied for bail. It may have helped the accused influence many of the crucial witnesses in the case.

It showed no seriousness warranted in a case in which two minor children were found hanging. There are no signs of having done the proper homework.

It did no homework, involving the investigation officer and the available witnesses on how to effectively present the case in the court.

It did not visit the crime scene and verified if the description tallied with the scene mahazar.

It gave no total idea of the case to the witnesses and failed to present a comprehensive case in the court.  Each witness has a role in the whole episode, and should be aware of it.

Many witnesses did not meet the prosecutor before their deposition in court. Many admitted they had not read their statements under CrPC 161 before being cross- examined.

No effort was made to convince the court about the educational and social backwardness of the witnesses so that it would have come to a better understanding of their depositions.

There was no effort to connect the links in a case in where there was no eye-witness. It seems many potential witnesses were omitted.

The prosecution did not ensure the presence of the investigating officer during the trial. On the other hand, he was kept off the proceedings.

(Prepared in consultation with lawyers)