HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Azad Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5162 of 2007
Decided On : 19-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the criminal appeal and conviction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the dacoity case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. procedural details regarding confession and charges. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. admissibility of testimonies and confession. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. arguments challenging the conviction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. prosecution's burden and the evaluation of evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal interpretations of section 313 of cr.p.c. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. guidance from case laws regarding criminal admissions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. issues regarding the fair trial and confession context. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. final judicial conclusions regarding the prosecution's failure. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. acquittal order and procedural follow-ups. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant, Azad Khan, son of Turab Khan, resident of Vyoti Katra, Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri, against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Special Trial No. 11-A of 2001, under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘I.P.C.’), Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant, Azad Khan has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C., alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He has further been sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 397 I.P.C., alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the case are that informant, Om Prakash, son of Sri Ram Pandey, resident of village Katra, Police Station Allau District Mainpuri lodged a written information (tehrir) dated 29.10.2000 with the In-charge, Police Station Allau, alleging therein that on the said day he was sleeping inside a room in his house whereas his wife, Kamla Devi and children were sleeping in the verandah. His brother, Ram Murti and his wife, Chandra Kanti were sleeping in another verandah. His nephew and his wife, Anju, were asleep in another room. At about 12:20 a.m., 10-15 miscreants entered his house after climbing down the roof and battered beating 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, a country-made pistol, and a gun. He somehow managed to escape from their clutches and ran towards the house. The miscreants assaulted his wife, children, and his brother’s wife. Hearing the hue and cry, Ramesh Prajapati, Rajendra and other villagers arrived at the spot and identified the miscreants by torch light. They identified Baksa son of Manphool, resident of Jatpura; another unknown person from Jatpura; Lalman, Mahesh, and Surendra, sons of Nathu Ram, residents of village Panchampur, Police Station Kishni; Vinod son of Ram Charan, resident of Hadua, Police Station Bewar; Azad son of Turab Khan, resident of village Katra and Raj Kumar, son of Sri Pal, resident of Niharpur. The miscreants looted cash, jewellery, besides bank and insurance papers. Parshuram, son of Sita Ram, resident of the same village, was involved in the said dacoity. During the incident, the miscreants opened fire, injuring injured Ramesh, Umesh, and Rajendra, all residents of the same village, who were taken to the Police Station.
4. Upon this information, an FIR, bearing Case Crime No. 170 of 2000, under Sections 395 and 397 IPC , was lodged at Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri, on 29.10.2000 at about 2:25 a.m. against nominated accused. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. The Investigating Offi

Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan
A confession made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot alone serve as the basis for conviction without corroborating evidence, highlighting the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reaso....
(1) Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to accused from consideration while dealing with case of particular accused.(2) Examination of accused – Court is empowered to take hel....
Procedure for recording the statement of the accused person so as to allow him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, if any, appearing in the evidence brought on record by the pr....
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of individual examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to ensure fair trial rights, and procedural defects can lead to acquittal if they cause prejudice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.