Conviction Can’t Rest Solely on Section 313 CrPC Statement: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man After 24 Years in Jail

“A Statement Not Made on Oath and Born Out of Fear Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, In a significant decision reaffirming the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the conviction of a man who had spent nearly 24 years in jail, holding that a statement made under Section 313 CrPC, especially one influenced by fear and without legal representation, cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Kumar and Justice J.J. Munir held that the trial was fundamentally flawed, marred by the absence of prosecution evidence, lack of legal aid, and reliance solely on an inadmissible confession by the accused made under apparent duress.

“Section 313 CrPC Statements Are Not Substantive Evidence, Especially Without Corroboration”

The High Court emphatically ruled that statements made under Section 313 of the CrPC cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, and certainly cannot be the sole foundation for a conviction.

Quoting from Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan [(2013) 5 SCC 722], the Bench observed:

“The statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution.”

The Court reiterated this settled principle in reference to several other Supreme Court rulings including Premchand v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2023 SC 1487], Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 2010 SC 2839], Pramod @ Bhoka v. State of Chhattisgarh [2024 (1) CGLJ 233], and Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam [(2019) 13 SCC 289].

In the present case, the prosecution examined only one formal witness, Constable Iqbal Singh (PW-1), who merely proved the FIR and charge sheet. No witness of fact, including the informant or the injured witnesses, was examined. There was, therefore, no evidence on record to prove the crime, except the accused’s own statement under Section 313 CrPC.

“Confession Born of Fear for Life Cannot Be Called Voluntary”: High Court Slams Trial Court’s Oversight

The Court also took serious note of seven applications moved by the accused, Azad Khan, before the Trial Court between October 2001 and February 2002, wherein he repeatedly pleaded to remain in jail out of fear of being eliminated by the complainant in collusion with the police.

Despite these applications, the Trial Court did not inquire into the voluntariness of the confession, nor did it question whether the accused had access to legal counsel.

“Though the admission under Section 313 CrPC may appear voluntary, it cannot be said to be free from fear or coercion when the accused has clearly expressed concern for his life. The Trial Court ignored these repeated confessions made under threat and failed to test the voluntariness of the same,” the Bench noted.

The Court held that this failure vitiated the trial.

“No Legal Aid Provided: Clear Violation of Article 21 and Section 304 CrPC”

Another fatal flaw highlighted by the High Court was the absence of legal aid during trial. The record showed no lawyer appointed or offered to the appellant, in violation of his right under Section 304 of CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“The right to fair trial includes the right to legal representation, and its denial is a gross miscarriage of justice. The appellant was left defenceless in a serious criminal trial resulting in life imprisonment, without any lawyer to assist him,” the Court observed.

It cited the Supreme Court’s position that failure to provide legal representation in a capital or serious criminal trial vitiates the entire trial.

“Long Incarceration in Absence of Evidence Is a Judicial Tragedy”

Most strikingly, the Court noted that the appellant had already undergone nearly 24 years in prison, convicted solely on the strength of a non-substantive statement, with no prosecution witnesses and no corroborating evidence.

“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, and his admission of guilt was under fear to save his life,” the Bench remarked in dismay.

The Bench declared that continuing the appellant’s detention would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice, emphasizing that the criminal justice system must protect the innocent, not merely punish the guilty.

Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Acquitted and Released

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated 05 February 2002, passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Mainpuri, in Special Sessions Trial No. 11-A of 2001, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 395 and 397 IPC.

“We come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant, as the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the appellant with the offence... Thus, the conviction of the appellant solely on the admission of guilt in his statement under Section 313 CrPC is not sustainable,” the Bench concluded.

The Court directed that Azad Khan be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. Before his release, he was ordered to execute a personal bond of ₹20,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 437-A CrPC) for appearance in case the State files an appeal against the acquittal.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025