SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3649

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 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Meraj Ahmad Khan, Yanendra Pandey.
For the Respondent: Govt. Adv.

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 reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 395 and 397 - Conviction for dacoity - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for dacoity and seven years for armed robbery without adequate evidence - Conviction solely based on the appellant's confession under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., deemed insufficient due to absence of corroborative evidence. (Paras 2, 18, 28)

(B) Admission of Guilt - Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and cannot solely establish guilt - Conviction cannot be premised on such statements in absence of other incriminating evidence. (Paras 22, 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for his involvement in a dacoity where multiple family members were assaulted. The police received information, lodged an FIR, and commenced the investigation. The appellant admitted to his involvement during trial proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded the prosecution failed to establish any evidence linking the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which contradicted the trial court’s conviction.

Issues: The main issues were whether a conviction can be based solely on the accused’s statement under Section 313, and whether said admission constitutes substantive evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a confession under Section 313 cannot be the basis of a conviction unless corroborated by other evidence, emphasizing the right to a fair trial and highlighting the lack of legal representation for the appellant.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top