'Jailed For 24 Years Sans Evidence': Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Convicted Solely Based On S. 313 CrPC Admission

Finding fault with the same, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar ruled that a conviction cannot be premised solely on an admission made in a statement under Section 313 CrPC, especially when the prosecution fails to adduce any corroborative or incriminating evidence.

The Court termed the incarceration of the appellant, Azad Khan, for almost 24 years as the sad part of the matter, noting that his so-called admission of guilt was likely driven by a fear for his life rather than a genuine confession.

The bench also noted that the appellant had no assistance of an Advocate to defend and was not offered or provided any legal aid, which violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and also constituted a violation of Section 304 CrPC.

Case in brief

In February 2002, the appellant was convicted under Section 395 (dacoity) and 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) IPC by the Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri.

It was alleged that in 2000, the appellant, along with 10-15 miscreants, entered into the informant's house, assaulted his family members and looted cash and jewellery. During the incident, the miscreants allegedly opened fire and injured three people.

During the trial, Azad Khan's case was separated from the other accused after he filed a confession application.

Later, the Trial Court observed that the accused had admitted his guilt and acknowledged that he was one of the members of the gang who committed the dacoity and thus, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Challenging his conviction, he moved the HC, wherein his counsel argued that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution in support of its case and no witness of fact was examined by the prosecution.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; however, in this case, the prosecution examined only one witness, a Constable, who was merely a formal witness.

"The prosecution has not produced the informant or any other witness to prove the facts of the case, in support of the charge. Thus, technically there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove their case", the HC noted.

The main issue before the HC was whether the appellant could have been convicted solely based on his admission in the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in the absence of any other evidence.

Answering in the negative, the Court relied extensively on Supreme Court's verdicts in the cases of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan 2013 and Premchand v. The State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168 to note that 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.

"…the explanation furnished by the accused cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Statements of the accused in the course of examination under Section 313, do not constitute evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act", the HC remarked.

Importantly, the High Court scrutinised the trial record and found that the appellant had made as many as seven confession applications where he expressed a fear that he would be killed by the informant in collusion with the Police if he were released.

The Court noted that he essentially prayed to remain in jail to save his life and thus, it remarked that his admission of guilt under Section 313 CrPC cannot be said to be free from any fear or pressure.

The Bench found fault with the Trial Judge for failing to notice that the appellant was confessing out of fear for his life.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant as the prosecution miserably failed to connect him with the offence.

"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," the Bench further remarked.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted Azad Khan of all charges. He has been directed to be released forthwith.

High Court Legal Services Committee Panel Advocate Yanendra Pandey appeared for the appellant

Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared for the State