The Allahabad High Court, while acquitting an accused who had remained in prison for nearly 24 years in a dacoity case, has categorically held that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of an ‘admission’ made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Now Section 351, BNSS) unless the prosecution leads any corroborative or incriminating evidence. Terming the prolonged incarceration of an innocent person as a sad reflection on the criminal justice process, the Court observed:
“Thus, the sad part of the matter is that the appellant is incarcerated in jail for almost 24 years, in a case in which there was no evidence against him and his admission of guilt in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was not only under fear to save his life from the informant, which went unnoticed by the Trial Court, but also, if treated as one made without fear, not sufficient to found a conviction and sentence, in absence of any incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
Setting aside the judgment of conviction passed in 2002, whereby the appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment along with seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, the Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Azad Khan, acquitted him of all charges under Sections 395 [Now Section 310(2), BNS] and 397 (Now Section 311, BNS) IPC and directed his immediate release.
The High Court found fault with the Trial Court for having ignored the crucial fact that the appellant had been repeatedly confessing out of fear for his life. During the course of trial, the accused had moved as many as seven “confession applications” apprehending that he would be killed upon release from jail. In his applications, the appellant had expressed fear that the informant, in collusion with the police, would eliminate him if he was set free.
Taking note of this aspect, the Court observed:
“…………the admission of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., though voluntary, cannot be said to be free from any fear or pressure. This aspect about the appellant moving different confession applications out of fear to save his life, before the Trial Court, has gone unnoticed by the Trial Judge while reaching his conclusions……..”
Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had utterly failed to produce any substantive evidence to prove its case. The prosecution examined only one witness, a constable who was merely a formal witness and not a witness of fact.
Upon examining the record, the High Court found that no factual witness was examined, and further noticed that the appellant was neither provided effective assistance of counsel nor extended legal aid during trial, observing:
“Also, there is nothing to disclose that he was offered and provided any legal aid, which was a violation of his right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, besides being a violation of Section 304 Cr.P.C. Thus, the appellant was also deprived of a fair trial in this case.”
The appellant had been convicted in February 2002 by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri under Sections 395 IPC (dacoity) (Now Section 310(2), BNS) and 397 IPC (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) (Now Section 311, BNS). The allegation was that in the year 2000, the appellant, along with 10 -15 miscreants, entered the complainant’s house, assaulted family members and looted cash and jewellery, besides opening fire and injuring three villagers. After the appellant submitted a confession during trial, his case was separated from that of the co-accused, and he was convicted solely on the basis of such admission.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant approached the High Court. The central question before the Court was whether, in the absence of any other evidence, a conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of an admission recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 351, BNSS)
While answering this legal issue, the Court relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya and Premchand, reiterating that:
“…………the explanation furnished by the accused cannot be considered in isolation but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the Section 313 statement(s) and statements of the accused in the course of examination under Section 313, do not constitute evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.”
Drawing its final conclusions, the High Court held:
“……….the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant, as the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the appellant with the offence in question and to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conviction of the appellant solely on the admission of guilt in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable.”
On these grounds, the Court concluded that “the instant criminal appeal is allowed”, bringing to an end nearly 24 years of incarceration suffered by the appellant in a case where the prosecution failed to prove its allegations.
Case: Azad Khan vs State of U.P.
Date of Order: 19.12.2025
See Order: Azad Khan vs State of U.P.
