Conviction Set Aside Due to Lack of Substantive Evidence and Violation of Fair Trial Rights
In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Azad Khan, who was convicted nearly 24 years ago for dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Sanjiv Kumar ruled that Khan's conviction was based solely on his admission of guilt during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, which cannot be deemed substantive evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The original trial court had sentenced Khan to life imprisonment, along with additional punitive measures, despite the absence of corroborative or incriminating evidence from the prosecution. The High Court highlighted the prosecution's failure to examine witnesses or provide substantive evidence linking Khan to the crime.
The judgment underscored the importance of a fair trial, noting that Khan was deprived of legal aid during his trial, constituting a violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 304 Cr.P.C. The court observed that Khan had submitted multiple confession applications, driven by fear for his life, which went unnoticed by the trial judge. These applications revealed that Khan was under duress, fearing harm from the informant in collusion with the police.
The High Court cited several Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction, as it does not constitute evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The court reiterated that any admission during this stage must be corroborated by prosecution evidence.
As a result, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted Khan, ordering his immediate release. Before his release, Khan is required to execute a personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ensuring his appearance if an appeal is filed against this acquittal.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the judicial system's commitment to upholding justice and the rights of the accused, ensuring that convictions are based on substantive evidence rather than procedural missteps.
Bottom Line:
Conviction cannot be based solely on the accused's admission of guilt under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as such statements do not constitute substantive evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Prosecution must provide corroborative and incriminating evidence to substantiate charges.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 395 and 397 IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C., Section 3 Indian Evidence Act, Article 21 Constitution of India, Section 304 Cr.P.C., Section 481 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Azad Khan v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825710
