Flaws in entire criminal process of a case can it lead to discharge of accused
Criminal case is pending for more than 10 years.After due inspection and search of documents ,it has been drawn the facts that, 1] At initial stage of registering or filing with court, prosecution or I/O has made undue delay. 2] This time taken was beyond 3 years. 3] INVESTIGATION OFFICER fail to obtain the permission of the Court for Condonation of delay. 4] I/O fail to issue notices to accuse regarding delay condonation ,which is mandatory. 5] I/O failed to deliver charge sheet to two accused in last 12 years. 6] It has been observed that I/O has deliberately did not incorporated the name of suspected culprit person in FIR [despite Evidence available ] despite I/O has due knowledge about this.Thereby he harbouring criminal offender. 7] I/O has made deliberate suppression of material & facts in first information report and final report. 8] Thus the report filed by I/O is far from reality .Misleading to Court,playing fraud on court & thereby try to obtain financial & other benefit from the protected culprit. 9] I/O is a public servant. Hence if hr derives any benefit by keeping the court /magistrate in dark for personal benefit, his report is bad in law and not maintainable and can not be read in to evidence. Also this can be termed as punishable offence. 10] Information available sometimes crucial for criminal investigation,but not incorporated delibaretely will be termed as suppression of material information. 11] Central Government Act : Section 212 in The Indian Penal Code 212. Harbouring offender.—Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment; if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, 12] Section 217: Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 13] Section 218: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Will these Grounds & Facts enforce Magistrate to reject the FIR or withdrawal of charges enumareted in FIR. Will it lead to dismiss the case and DISCHARGE the accused.
As you say, there have been several inconsistencies as well as malafide actions involved in this case. The first question which arises is, if the case has been pending for so long, why weren’t these objections made during the hearings given by the Court in all these years. Unless condonation of delay is granted by the Court, evidence or for that matter, the case cannot be heard. So, this seems quite unreasonable that Court went on and heard the case despite there being no condonation of delay.
Conviction in case of criminal trial is based on the principle of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. If guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused will be acquitted. However, as you say that there have been instances where the I/O has acted in an unlawful manner. In such a case, a case can be made against the I/O as per the provisions of law, some of which you have correctly pointed out. There have been numerous cases where the accused has been acquitted due to lack of evidence.
In your case, you can rightfully file before the Court a case against the I/O for his unlawful actions, and if new/unfabricated evidences can be brought to light, the case can be heard again and the accused can be convicted or acquitted based on the merits of the case.