Admission Of Guilt In Statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Alone, Cannot Be Made The Basis Of Conviction: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred by the appellant, who was convicted in a case registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar held, “In view of the above discussion, 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. Therefore, it is clear that the admission of guilt in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., alone, cannot be made the basis of conviction of the appellant in the present case, in absence of any other incriminating evidence.”

Advocate Meraj Ahmad Khan represented the Appellant while Govt. Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The informant lodged a written information with the In-charge of the Police Station alleging therein that one late night, 10-15 miscreants entered his house after climbing down the roof and beat his children. A lantern was lit in the verandah. Some miscreants kicked at the door to his room, asking him to open it, saying they were policemen. When he opened the door, the miscreants caught hold of him and assaulted him with a lathi, danda, and a country-made pistol. The miscreants assaulted his wife, children, and his brother’s wife. Hearing the hue and cry, other villagers arrived at the spot and identified the miscreants. The miscreants looted cash, jewellery, besides bank and insurance papers.

During the incident, the miscreants opened fire, injuring the residents of the same village, who were taken to the Police Station. Upon this information, an FIR was lodged under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The appellant appeared before the Court of Sessions alongwith the other co-accused. He moved a confession application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 395 and 397 IPC against the appellant, wherein he admitted his guilt. Upon this admission, the Court found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Reasoning

The Bench reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench noted that the prosecution had examined the Constable alone in evidence, who was a formal witness. He had proved the copy of the FIR and the charge-sheet as secondary evidence. The prosecution had 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”, it stated.

Dealing with the aspect of the appellant’s conviction solely on the basis of his admission in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Bench stated that 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. The Bench also noticed that the appellant moved as many as seven confession applications before the Court, and he also expressed fear of being killed by the informant, in collusion with the Police, as and when he was released from jail. He further prayed that he be permitted to remain in jail to save his life.

“In view of the above, 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. It is also relevant to note that the record does not show that the appellant had the assistance of an Advocate to defend. 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”, it held.

The Bench further considered that the appellant was incarcerated in jail for almost 24 years, in a case in which there was no evidence against him. Holding that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, the Bench allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to be released.

Cause Title: Azad Khan v. State of U.P (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:230449-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Meraj Ahmad Khan, Yanendra Pandey

Respondent: Govt. Advocate

Click here to read/download Order