In a significant ruling that underscores the paramount importance of substantive evidence and a fair trial, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who spent nearly 24 years behind bars serving a life sentence for dacoity. A division bench strongly criticized the trial court for committing a grave error by convicting the appellant, Azad Khan, based merely on his confessional statement, while the prosecution failed to produce any corroborative evidence.
A Conviction Based on Fear, Not Evidence
The bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, in its order dated December 24, 2025, meticulously examined the case record. It found that Azad Khan had moved seven separate confession applications between October 24, 2001, and February 5, 2002. In these applications, he expressed a mortal fear of being killed by the informant in collusion with the police if released, and he pleaded to remain in jail for his own safety.
The High Court noted that the trial court overlooked this crucial context. "The trial court did not take note of the fact... that the appellant expressed fear of being killed by the informant, in collusion with the police," the order stated. The bench concluded that the conviction rested on an admission of guilt made under duress and fear, which is not a valid basis for a conviction in the absence of other evidence.
Complete Failure of Prosecution's Case
The case originated from an incident of dacoity on October 29, 2000, at the house of Om Prakash in Katra, Mainpuri. It was alleged that a gang of 10-15 dacoits looted the house and opened fire while fleeing, injuring some villagers. Azad Khan, a resident of the same village, was among seven individuals named in the chargesheet.
However, during the trial at the Additional Sessions Court in Mainpuri, the prosecution's case collapsed. The High Court observed that the prosecution examined only one formal witness, a constable, who merely proved the FIR and chargesheet. Critically, the informant and other eyewitnesses were never produced in court to testify and prove the allegations.
"Thus, technically there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove their case," the bench remarked, emphasizing that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies entirely with the prosecution.
Legal Principles on Confessional Statements
The judgment delivered a detailed exposition on the legal sanctity of statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court clarified that such a statement is not evidence recorded under oath and cannot be used as a substitute for prosecution evidence or to fill gaps in the prosecution's case.
"His statement cannot be made a basis for his conviction... The statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence," the order explained. It can only be used to appreciate existing evidence, and a conviction cannot be sustained solely on its basis if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise insufficient.
Deprivation of a Fair Trial
Adding to the miscarriage of justice, the High Court found that Azad Khan was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial. The record showed no indication that he had the assistance of a lawyer or was offered legal aid, which is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 304 of the CrPC.
"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," the bench stated poignantly. It highlighted the tragic human cost of a legal process that failed at multiple levels.
Acquittal and Immediate Release Ordered
Allowing the criminal appeal, the division bench set aside the trial court's judgment and order dated February 5, 2002. It acquitted Azad Khan of the charges under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court issued a direct order for his immediate release: "The appellant, Azad Khan is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case." This directive brings a close to a nearly quarter-century-long ordeal for the accused, marking a hard-won vindication of his legal rights.
