Allahabad High Court Frees Man After 24 Years, Slams Conviction Based Solely on ‘Confession’ Made in Fear
Rajesh Pandey
In a deeply unsettling reminder of the cost of procedural lapses, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the life sentence of Azad Khan, who had spent nearly 24 years behind bars for a dacoity case, holding that his conviction was illegal, unjust, and violative of his fundamental right to a fair trial.
A Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar ruled that a conviction cannot rest solely on an admission made by an accused in a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly when the prosecution has failed to produce any independent, corroborative, or incriminating evidence.
Conviction Based Only on Section 313 Statement
The case dates back to February 2002, when a trial court in Mainpuri convicted Azad Khan under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The conviction was based exclusively on what the trial court described as an “admission of guilt” made by the accused in his Section 313 CrPC statement — a provision meant to allow an accused to explain the evidence against him, not to serve as substantive proof of guilt.
Crucially, the prosecution did not examine any eyewitnesses, nor did it present any evidence to link Khan to the alleged crime.
Allegations and Trial History
According to the prosecution, an incident occurred in 2000 in which a group of 10–15 armed men allegedly stormed the informant’s house, assaulted family members, looted cash and jewellery, and opened fire, injuring three persons. Khan was named as one of the accused.
During the trial, his case was separated from that of the co-accused after he submitted a confession application.
The trial court later treated his statements as an admission of guilt and convicted him, without scrutinizing whether the confession was voluntary or supported by evidence.
Fear, Not Free Will
While hearing Khan’s appeal, the High Court examined the trial record in detail and found disturbing facts.
The appellant had made no fewer than seven applications during the proceedings, repeatedly expressing fear that he would be killed by the informant in collusion with the police if he were released.
The Bench noted that Khan was not seeking conviction but, paradoxically, pleading to remain in jail as a means of protecting his life.
In this context, the court observed that his so-called admission of guilt was clearly driven by fear and coercive circumstances, not by free will or a genuine confession.
“The sad part of the matter,” the court remarked, was that Khan’s incarceration for nearly 24 years flowed from an admission extracted in an atmosphere of terror, rather than from any lawful proof of guilt.
Denial of Legal Aid, Violation of Article 21
The High Court also found that Khan had no legal representation during the trial.
He was neither assisted by a lawyer nor provided free legal aid, in blatant violation of Section 304 CrPC, which mandates state-funded legal assistance for accused persons facing serious criminal charges.
This failure, the court held, amounted to a grave breach of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a fair trial.
Trial Court’s “Grave Error”
The Bench strongly ccriticizedthe trial judge for failing to recognize that the accused’s statements were born out of fear for his life and for convicting him without any supporting evidence.
It held that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to connect Azad Khan with the alleged offence in any legally sustainable manner.
Acquittal After Two Decades
In its judgment dated December 19, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and life sentence, and acquitted Azad Khan of all charges.
The court directed that he be released forthwith, bringing an end — albeit painfully late — to nearly a quarter-century of wrongful incarceration.
The case stands as a stark indictment of systemic failures, underscoring how procedural shortcuts, denial of legal aid, and blind reliance on coerced admissions can devastate lives and undermine the very foundations of criminal justice.
#AllahabadHighCourt #MiscarriageOfJustice #RightToFairTrial #Article21 #LegalAid #CrPC #WrongfulConviction #IndianJudiciary #DacoityCase #JusticeDelayed
