Court emphasizes necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; victim's statement under pressure deemed insufficient for conviction.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of Lal Babu in an abduction case, emphasizing the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that mandate the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on July 2, 2026, in response to an appeal filed against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 30, Barabanki.
The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 11, 2009, accusing Lal Babu and others of kidnapping a minor girl. The trial court had relied heavily on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), despite her retracting the allegations during her examination on oath. The trial court had convicted Lal Babu under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
In its judgment, the High Court highlighted several critical issues with the trial court's approach. Firstly, the victim had denied the allegations during her testimony, stating that her statement under Section 164 CrPC was given under police pressure. Furthermore, all prosecution witnesses, including the victim's father and sister, had turned hostile, leaving no substantial evidence to support the charges.
Justice Vidyarthi pointed out that the conviction was based solely on the Section 164 CrPC statement, which is not recorded under oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and without the opportunity for cross-examination. This violated the accused's right to a fair trial, as enshrined in the principles of criminal jurisprudence, which require evidence to be presented and tested in the presence of the accused or their pleader.
The court reiterated that the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC could not be the sole basis for conviction, especially when it is contradicted by subsequent testimony given under oath. The judgment emphasized that a conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or moral conviction, but must be based on legally admissible evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court also critiqued the trial court's reliance on documents such as the charge-sheet and FIR as admissible evidence, noting that these alone cannot substantiate the prosecution's case without corroborative testimony from witnesses.
In allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted Lal Babu of the charges under Section 366 IPC. The court ordered that he furnish a personal bond and sureties to ensure his appearance before the Supreme Court if an appeal is filed against this judgment.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused, ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence rather than procedural shortcuts or unverified statements.
Bottom line:-
Conviction solely based on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, without supporting evidence and when the victim denies the allegations during her examination on oath, is legally unsustainable. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on statements recorded during investigation without cross-examination violates fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 366, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 164, 273, 299, 313, 446, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 33
Lal Babu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940738
