- ABSTRACT
The Criminal Justice of India relies profoundly upon the principle of impartial investigation and due process of law. Yet, in various number of cases in the Indian territory the accused are acquitted or discharged due to the lapses in the procedure that has to be followed by the police during the course of investigation and collection of evidence. Certain lapses which affect the prosecution’s cases are: delay in filing the FIR, unsuccessful in complying with necessary protocols under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, maladministration of evidence which can be either physical or digital evidence, also absenteeism of independent witnesses can cause failure in providing justice to the victims.
This research paper critically evaluates the scope to which procedural irregularities/ lapses underwrite to acquittals and discharges, with a emphasis on Indian law and comparative visions from international law. It inspects the key judicial pronouncements that have molded the standards for lawful investigation, analysis of the breaches in current police practices, and discusses the wider insinuations on victims’ rights and public confidence in the legal system. Through the use of doctrines, case law and statutory provisions, this study aims to underline the obligation of procedural veracity and recommends practical reforms which could be extending from improved police training to sterner judicial oversight—to ensure that justice for victims as well as the accused is neither conceded nor delayed.
- KEYWORDS
Procedural Lapse, Acquittal, Criminal Justice, Police Investigation, Chain of Custody, Evidence Law.
- INTRODUCTION
The criminal justice system of India is primarily engrained in the principles of fair trial and due process of law. Police’s course of action plays a vital role in ensuring that the justice has prevailed, by not only recognizing and arraigning offenders but also by protecting and safeguarding the rights of the accused. However, in contemporary times, Indian courts have seen a large surge in cases of accused individuals being acquitted or discharged merely due to the lapses in the procedure which is to be followed by police. These procedural lapses include- delay in filing of the First Information Report (FIRs), improper handling, tampering of evidence, lack of compliancy with the mandatory provisions such as Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, unsuccessful to produce independent witnesses. Nonetheless, courts, which are legally bounded by the legal and constitutional provisions and principles have no option but to redress the accused when such lapses give serious implications regarding the case drawn by the prosecution, as seen in cases like Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab. Whereas these decisions protect the rights of the accused, they also raise substantial concerns about justice being denied to victims and the loss of public confidence in the judiciary of India. This research paper seeks to evaluate the details behind such procedural lapses, analysis of judicial trends, and propose meaningful reforms to restore and safeguard the balance between protecting the rights of the accused and delivering justice to the victims to retain confidence in Indian Judiciary.
In the Criminal Justice System in India, there is an increase in number of cases that are resulting in the acquittal or discharge of accused individuals—it is not necessarily due to their innocence or a lack of evidence, but due to a consequence of procedural lapses by police authorities. Courts, bound by constitutional mandates and the principles of due process, have often been compelled to set aside prosecutions on these technical grounds. While such judicial outcomes are essential to protect individual rights and uphold the rule of law, they simultaneously expose deep-rooted inefficiencies and a lack of accountability within law enforcement agencies. This recurring trend raises a critical legal and ethical question: should procedural lapses by police automatically nullify prosecutions even when credible evidence of guilt exists? This research seeks to examine the tension between procedural fairness and substantive justice, and whether reforms in investigative practices or judicial discretion are necessary to bridge the gap between legal compliance and the delivery of justice.
This research paper aims to critically evaluates how the procedural lapses caused by the police during the investigation of the case can lead to acquittal or discharge of the accused. It seeks to identify and classify the common types of procedural lapses by the police and its legal consequences through analyzing case laws and statutory interpretation. The research also aims to evaluate the prevailing safeguards provided under Indian Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Laws, and the way courts interpret and enforce these safeguards. Also, by comparing domestic trends with international practices, the study further aims to highlight systemic gaps in police accountability and investigative standards in India. Ultimately, the paper longs to propose constructive and procedural legal reforms that can reduce procedural lapses by police, without compromising the rights of the accused or the honor of the judiciary.
This study mainly aims at criminal cases of India in which the accused is acquitted or discharged due to procedural lapses by the police, such as flawed investigation, delayed FIRs, or mishandling of evidence. It inspects the applicable provisions of the CrPC and Indian Evidence Act, along with key judicial decisions. This paper holds comparison with international practices but the core analysis is confined to Indian Laws. The research is based on doctrines, reported case laws and statutes of India.
- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research paper has followed doctrinal and qualitative method of research, particularly focusing on evaluation and analysis of certain legal principles and rules, statutes by the Indian Laws and landmark judicial precedents. The study is based on two sources: primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are the statutory provisions of Indian law such as the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, along with landmark judgments by Supreme Court and various High Courts of India. Secondary sources comprise of articles, legal commentaries, reports of the Law Commission of India, and credible news reports that highlights instances of police procedural lapses and their legal consequences.
This research answers key questions, like: What are the types of procedural lapses that commonly lead to acquittal or discharge? How constantly does Indian courts encounter such lapses? Are there any discrepancies in judicial interpretation across jurisdictions? How do other legal systems handle similar procedural lapses by the police? And what are the reforms that can be suggested for procedures to be followed diligently without compromising justice?
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This issue has been widely discussed by articles and commentaries discussing the effect of procedural lapses, faulty investigation upon the overall consequence of the case. These researches says that these procedural lapses not only lead to discharge or acquittal of accused but also impounds the constitutional right of free and fair trial. An article titled “Proper Investigation is Fare Judgment” highlights that faulty investigations can lead to injustice not only for the accused but also for victims. The article draws attention to the role of impartial and legally compliant investigation as the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, while stressing that courts must intervene where police procedures fall short of statutory expectations.
Commentaries on the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act further highlight the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards. Provisions such as Section 41A CrPC (procedure of arrest), Section 100 CrPC (search and seizure), and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (electronic evidence) are discussed in detail, noting that non-compliance with these procedural mandates has been a recurring ground for acquittal. Judicial observations in landmark cases have reinforced this concern. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of fair and impartial investigation as the backbone of criminal justice. Similarly, in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, the Court held that the same police officer acting as both the complainant and the investigator vitiates the trial. Courts have consistently set aside convictions where procedural irregularities create serious doubts about the fairness of the investigation, thereby emphasizing the judiciary’s role in preserving due process.
- METHOD
One of the major reasons for the downfall of police investigation process in India is procedural non-compliance by the police. These failures not only effects the foundation of the cases but also results in discharge or acquittal of the accused. One of the most important and reoccurring cause is delay in filing the First Information Report. When the FIR is not registered immediately without any reasonable justification, the courts have a tendency to to view the prosecution’s case with doubt or fabrication of facts. These preliminary procedural mistakes can cause doubt on creditibilty of the investigation.
Another serious lapse is the delay or irregularity in forwarding evidence—particularly in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—to Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL). The Rajasthan High Court, in a 2024 judgment, highlighted how the absence of timely forensic examination raised legitimate doubts regarding the integrity of seized substances.
The courts have ordered to maintain a chain of custody is crucial to make sure the of its evidentiary value of physical samples. Failure to obtain independent witnesses while searching and seizure is also a problem. Courts do not tend to rely solely on the words of the police officers, without any proper justification of explanation for their absenteeism, this usually leads to acquittal.
In the recent times, the means of evidence have been extended to electronic evidence, which requires observance to certain statutory conditions under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Non-compliance with this provision has led to failure in many prosecutions. For instance, in Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court rejected CCTV footage for lack of a valid Section 65B certificate, which was otherwise critical to establishing the prosecution’s narrative. This case strengthened the growing judicial requirement on procedural accuracy when handling digital material.
In some cases, the lapses caused by the police are so far-reaching, where mistakes are so consequential that the court has to discharge the case at the initiation of trial proceedings itself. Whereas, in some cases the trial proceeds but due to the unreliable evidence presented by the police the accused is discharged due to insufficiency of admissible proof. This creates a contradictory situation, the accused who might be guilty would be allowed to be discharged due to the procedural lapses of the police. These situation rises state of confusion in which the rights of the accused shall prevail but also a guilty person should not be allowed be set at liberty amongst all and is profoundly unjust for the victim as well.
Several landmark decisions have highlighted how seriously Indian courts view procedural violations. In Sachin Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court stressed that drawing samples of narcotics without a Magistrate’s presence contravened mandatory guidelines and rendered the prosecution’s evidence unreliable. Similarly, in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court found that having the same officer act as both complainant and investigator breached the doctrine of fair investigation and violated natural justice. The prominence in such decisions is clear: dedication to procedure is not a formality but a constitutional obligation.
International jurisprudence resonances similar principles. In Abdul Hakeem v. State, the Lahore High Court of Pakistan found that prosecutorial lapses—especially in preserving evidence and documenting seizure—vitiated the fairness of the trial, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. In Williams v. The Queen in Australia, the conviction was overturned because the evidence was obtained during unlawful detention, thereby violating due process. These cases demonstrate that the right to a fair trial is universally accustomed on the lawful behavior of investigations.
Judicial comparisons also offer critical awareness. The Philippines enforces strict evidentiary protocols through its Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, which requires real-time documentation and presence of multiple officials during seizure. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has frequently underlined the importance of procedural safeguards under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In S and Marper v. United Kingdom, it held that indefinite retention of biometric data of acquitted individuals breached the right to privacy, thereby affirming the principle that due process must be respected even after acquittal.
Overall, these judicial decisions both in India and globally, highlight a growing recognition that defective investigations violate the due process of criminal proceedings. They also imitate a wider institutional norm: that adherence to procedural safeguards is a prerequisite for material justice, not repugnant to due process.
- SUGGESTIONS
To address the institutional challenge of acquittals coming from procedural lapses by the police, several institutional restricting, statutory reforms, and technological interventions must be implemented. The first and the most crucial step is reforming, restructuring the law enforcement training framework. Investigation officers/ Law enforcement personnel must undertake regular and specialized training programs, capacity building programs, particularly in the collection and management of documentation, evidentiary recording and retention of physical and digital evidence, which could be tangible and electronic evidence and material, digital exhibits. This includes registration FIRs, ensuring chain of custody for seized items, and also safeguarding all the procedural compliance during arrests and searches. Many breached of procedural safeguards stem not from mala fide intent but from lack of awareness or inadequate legal literacy or outdated methods. Therefore, proper training programs on criminal laws, forensic science, and rules about handling evidence should be established within state and central police academies.
At the same time, police and other law agencies must adopt technological advancements to reduce mistakes and make their work more transparent. The use of body-worn cameras during search-and-seizure procedures and investigatory searches, CCTV monitoring of detention facilities, and digital evidence management systems of evidence can provide real-time accountability. Adding barcodes to seized items and the introduction of electronic seals or digital seals can further ensure that chain-of-custody records are tamper-proof. Electronic tools can also mechanize FIR filing and reduce procedural delays by directly linking the field officers with judicial and forensic authorities, allowing quicker, more accurate documentation and sample transfers.
From a jurisprudential point of view, there is a persistent need to institutionalize standard operating procedures (SOPs), procedural protocols / statutory guidelines for certain categories of offences, especially under rigorous legislative statutes such as the NDPS Act. These SOPs should include detailed steps for evidence collection, preservation, and forwarding of evidence, as well as procedural templates for documenting compliance. Guidelines for the proper execution of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, including sample formats and certification protocols for digital evidence, should also be standardized and made accessible to investigating officers. Further, state police manuals must be updated to align with recent judicial pronouncements to avoid outdated practices.
Finally, judicial supervision must be enhanced to act as both a deterrent and a corrective nature of punishment. Magistrates should play a supervisory function in ensuring procedural compliance during investigation, particularly in the initial stages such as remand hearings, narcotic seizures, and digital evidence collection. Courts can develop a checklist-based approach to examine whether essential procedural safeguards have been met before proceeding to trial. Additionally, systematic appraisal of law enforcement efficacy in maintaining evidentiary integrity can be embedded through court-supervised audits or case reviews in criminal courts.
By integrating training, technology, legal clarity, and judicial oversight, the system can shift away from lapses in due process that lapses in due process—and move toward a model that upholds both substantive justice and procedural fairness
- CONCLUSION
The study reveals that procedural lapses by police authorities have become a frequent obstruction of justice, often resulting in the discharge or acquittal of the accused—not because of lack of culpability, but due to tainted inquiries. From delay in lodging First Information Report and chain of custody breaches to procedural non-adherence with codified legal requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, these procedural errors prejudicially affect the prosecution’s case. Courts, bound by the principles of principles of natural justice and fair trial, have little choice but to intervene, even if it means the accused may be acquitted. This legal outcome, though within constitutional framework, often leaves aggrieved parties without remedy and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
To address this growing challenge, there is an urgent need to align between jurisprudential benchmarks and law enforcement practices. Harmonizing the two requires a comprehensive remedial framework: skill development for investigating officers, formalized SOPs, greater technological interventions to safeguard chain of custody, and safeguard chain of custody during the investigative process. These measures will help transform procedural safeguards from procedural obstacles into mechanisms for establishing truth.
Eventually, justice must not only be done but must noticeably be seen to be done. When cases fail on account of small procedural flaws, it undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice system as a whole. Therefore, ensuring compliance with procedural norms is not a matter of administrative formalities —it is a constitutional necessity that upholds the supremacy of law and reinforces public confidence in the legal system.
Sabina Fatima
Siddharth College of Law, Mumbai University