Conviction Overturned Due to Improper Reliance on Evidence Recorded in Absence of Accused
In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Pramod Kumar Singh, alias Guddu Singh, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, for his alleged involvement in a 2008 murder case. The Division Bench at Lucknow, comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Subhash Vidyarthi, delivered the judgment on May 22, 2026, setting aside the previous conviction on grounds of procedural lapses.
The appellant was initially convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 506(2), and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with a sentence of life imprisonment and fines. However, the High Court found that the trial court had erroneously relied on evidence recorded before the appellant was summoned to face trial, which is contrary to the mandates of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the Indian Evidence Act.
The crux of the appeal rested on the improper use of testimonies recorded in the absence of the accused. The judgment highlighted that, under Sections 273 and 299 of the Cr.P.C., evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused, unless specific statutory exceptions apply. The testimonies that led to the appellant's conviction were recorded before he was summoned and were not subject to cross-examination during his trial, violating his right to a fair trial.
Justice Chauhan, delivering the verdict, emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure justice. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in "Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab", noting that evidence used for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot form the basis for conviction unless it is recorded in the presence of the accused.
Furthermore, key prosecution witnesses, including the injured complainant Pintu Singh, recanted their earlier statements implicating the appellant, stating that they were made under duress. The trial court's reliance on these earlier testimonies, despite their retraction, was deemed unsustainable.
The High Court also pointed out that no other evidence substantiated the appellant's involvement in the crime. The appellant's acquittal underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural justice and the rights of the accused.
With the acquittal, the court directed the immediate release of Pramod Kumar Singh, unless he is required in another case, and the disposal of the bail application as infructuous.
Bottom line:-
Evidence recorded in the absence of an accused person cannot form the basis of conviction unless specific statutory exceptions apply under Cr.P.C. Sections 273 and 299 or Evidence Act, 1872 Section 33.
Statutory provision(s):
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 273, 299, 319, and 437A
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 33
This judgment serves as a reminder of the critical importance of procedural integrity in criminal trials and the necessity of ensuring that all accused individuals are afforded their rights under the law.
