Allahabad High Court Acquits Man After 24 Years in Jail: Conviction Based Solely on Section 313 CrPC Admission Held Unconstitutional

December 24, 2025

Case Background and Procedural History

The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of Azad Khan, who had spent nearly 24 years in prison following a life sentence awarded in 2002 in connection with a dacoity case. The trial court had convicted him under Section 395 (dacoity) and Section 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, solely on the basis of his admission recorded during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The conviction arose from allegations that in the year 2000, the appellant, along with 10–15 unidentified miscreants, allegedly entered the complainant’s residence, assaulted family members, looted valuables, and opened fire, injuring three persons.

Conviction Based Solely on Section 313 CrPC Admission — Judicial Scrutiny

The Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar observed that the trial court had erroneously premised the conviction exclusively on the Section 313 CrPC statement of the appellant, without any corroborative prosecution evidence.

The High Court reiterated that a statement under Section 313 CrPC:

• is not substantive evidence, and
• cannot form the sole basis of conviction

especially in the absence of:

• witness testimony
• incriminating documentary evidence
• corroborative proof linking the accused with the offence

The Court held that such reliance violated the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial standards under Indian law.

Absence of Legal Representation and Violation of Article 21

The Court further noted that the appellant was not represented by counsel during the trial proceedings and was not provided with legal aid at State expense.

This constituted a violation of:

• Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
• Right to a fair trial
• Principles of natural justice

The Court also invoked Section 304 CrPC, which mandates that where the accused is unrepresented, the court must ensure provision of free legal aid at State cost.

The failure to provide legal assistance rendered the trial:

• unfair
• constitutionally infirm
• procedurally defective

Appellant’s Repeated Pleas of Fear and Compulsion

Upon examining the case records, the High Court found that the appellant had submitted multiple written applications — at least seven — expressing fear that he would be killed by the complainant in collusion with the police if released.

The Court observed that:

• his admissions were not voluntary
• the confessions were made under fear and compulsion
• the appellant sought to remain in prison for safety

Therefore, his Section 313 admission:

• was not a free and conscious confession
• lacked voluntariness
• could not be treated as an admission of guilt

The Court criticised the trial court for failing to recognise the coercive circumstances surrounding the appellant’s statements.

Finding of Absence of Prosecution Evidence

The High Court examined the trial proceedings and recorded that:

• no prosecution witness had been examined
• no factual evidence was produced
• the prosecution failed to establish guilt
• there was no evidence linking the appellant to the alleged incident

Accordingly, the Court held that the conviction was not sustainable in law.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

Relevant provisions considered in the judgment included:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Section 313 — Examination of the accused
• Section 304 — Legal aid to accused at State expense

Constitution of India

• Article 21 — Right to life and personal liberty
• Right to fair trial as part of Article 21 guarantee

Important Judicial Principles Affirmed

The judgment reinforces well-established legal principles, including:

A conviction cannot be based solely on a statement under Section 313 CrPC.
Voluntariness of confession is essential in criminal proceedings.
Failure to provide legal aid renders trial unconstitutional.
Onerous duty lies on courts to ensure procedural fairness.
Prosecution must independently prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The decision aligns with earlier judicial precedents holding that a Section 313 statement may only be used to explain circumstances and not as independent evidence of guilt.

Final Outcome and Court’s Direction

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside:

• the conviction
• the sentence of life imprisonment

Azad Khan was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith vide judgment dated December 19.

The Court described his extended incarceration as “sad” and a consequence of grave procedural and constitutional lapses.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s continuing commitment to:

• safeguarding procedural fairness
• preventing coerced confessions
• ensuring meaningful legal representation
• reinforcing constitutional protections in criminal trials

The ruling stands as a critical reminder that criminal conviction must rest on credible evidence, not technical admissions obtained under duress or fear, especially where the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof.