why waste time with lower court and high courts ?

Question

when all of us know that every one who is punished by any court will appeal in the supreme court and the trial will begin anew then why not try them in supreme court to begin with so the verdict is final

Answer 1

In the Supreme Court no fresh trial takes place of any criminal complaint that has been decided by the trial court. Even at the time of revision & appeal as the case may be in the higher court whether in the session court or high court the trail of the already tried complaint never takes place. It’s the jurisdiction of the complaint & the legal aspect/provisions of the complaint which is challenged is decided by these courts in relation to the said criminal complaint & in doing so they go through the records of the trail court with regard to the complaint. The Supreme Court is the constitutional court which decides the constitutional aspect of the case & sees if any decision made by the lower courts has infringed the constitutional aspect while deciding such a case. To say the Supreme Court reopens the trail of a complaint is wrong, it only decide whether the trail court while deciding the said complaint made any constitutional error that will harm the fair justice in such case or not. Secondly the Supreme Court in very few cases admit the Special leave petition for any appeal brought whether in civil or criminal matter, most of these are dismissed at the time of admission itself, concurring with the decision of the lower courts.

Answer 2

The supreme court would be swamped with cases if everyone went there first. It's almost impossible to get there anyway. That's why the US has a system of courts to deal with matters and cases in the most efficient way possible

Answer 3

For one, the supreme court would be so backed up it would take even longer than it already does and the supreme court only deals with appeals.