The judge decided the case in Shanti's favour only on the basis of the evidence before the court. The judge did not jump to the conclusion that Shanti was the thief just because she was a poor maid servant. Instead, the judge remained impartial. Since, the evidence showed that the gold chain was stolen by some young men and not Shanti, he set Shanti free.

The role of the judge in the criminal justice system are as follows:
(i) The judge has a key role in the criminal justice system because it is the judge who decides whether the accused is guilty or innocent. He/she does this after conducting the trial impartially in an open court.
(ii) The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence.
(iii) The judge finally decides whether the accused person is guilty or innocent on the basis of the evidence presented and in accordance with the law.

Since. we have the rule of law in India, everyone, including the police, is subject to the law of the land. Therefore, all functions of the police have to be conducted in accordance with the law and with full respect for human rights
The Supreme Court has also laid down some guidelines that the police must follow at the time of arrest, detention and interrogation. The police are not allowed to torture or beat or shoot anyone during an investigation. Also, the police cannot inflict any form of punishment on a person even for petty offences.

Different persons need to play different roles as part of the criminal justice system in order to:
(i) maintain impartiality
(ii) keep a check on the powers of different members of the criminal justice system and prevent any abuse of power.

No, the victims will not get justice if only one person performed all the functions of the criminal justice system. If one person performed all the functions, there would not be any scope for fairness. The person may be influenced by several prejudices and there would be no one to check his/her abuse of Power

Police
(i) take photographs of burnt homes
(ii) record the evidence
(iii) arrest the Fiesta fans
(iv) get the assaulted women medically examined
Public Prosecutor
(v) examine the witnesses in court
(vi) argue the case for the victims' Defence Lawyer
(vii) meet the accused persons
(viii) hear the witnesses
(ix) cross-examine the witnesses
Judge
(x) record the statements of witnesses
(xi) conduct a fair trial
(xii) write the judgement
(xiii) pass the judgement
(xiv) decide for how many years the accused will be put in jail

Shanti would not have been able to present her case to the judge to prove that she was innocent. As a result of this, she would not have got justice

It means the questions/counter questions asked by Public Prosecutors and defence lawyers to witnesses to get accurate information.

Basis of evidence means the information provided by witnesses and other objects, which is used to arrive at a decision or judgement.

Open court means that the court proceedings are held in public view without any restrictions.

The judge said that the police had not investigated the case fairly before arresting Shanri, It noted the grave lapse in duty on the part of the police

I do not think that the officer in charge of the police station would have lodged an FIR promptly in this case. In my opinion, political and social status are some of the factors that influence the decision of the police to register or not register an FIR. Those with political power or lots of money do tend to enjoy the power of influence in these matters

No, SI Rao did not do enough to question witnesses and compile evidence before arresting Shanti and filing a case against her. SI Rao should not have arrested Shanti without conducting a preliminary enquiry. He should have made broader investigations by enquiring people in the locality. He arrested Shanti merely on the basis of what Mr Shinde told him. His decision was not neutral and therefore wrong.

No, it was not legal for the police to detain Shanti's brother Sushi!. It violates the DK Basu Guidelines

Confessions made during police custody are not used as evidence against the accused as a rule. This is because there is a possibility that the police may have used illegal means to make the accused confess to something which is not done by him/her.