Not Pressing Criminal Appeal By Accused After Conviction By Lower Court Is Like Confession Of Offence: Allahabad...
1. Principle Overview
Observation: When an accused is convicted by a competent court and does not prefer an appeal within the prescribed time, it may be interpreted as acceptance of the conviction, akin to a confession of guilt.
Legal Basis:
Section 372 CrPC allows appeal against conviction.
Limitation periods under Section 379 CrPC (for filing appeal to High Court) must be strictly followed.
Judicial pronouncements establish that inaction by the accused post-conviction strengthens the presumption of correctness of the lower court’s findings.
Key idea: Silence/inaction by the accused is not mere negligence; it may be treated as implied acceptance of guilt.
2. Allahabad High Court’s Observation
In several judgments, the Allahabad High Court has held:
Non-filing of appeal by the convicted person is a strong circumstance indicating:
Awareness of guilt;
Acceptance of conviction;
Credibility of lower court’s findings.
Not absolute proof, but it is a factor in assessing guilt or correctness of conviction, especially when:
Conviction is for minor or moderate offences;
Evidence is otherwise cogent;
Delay or inaction is voluntary and deliberate.
Example statement:
“Where the accused, after due opportunity and knowledge of the conviction, does not prefer an appeal, it may be treated as an implied admission of guilt and strengthens the conclusion of conviction by the trial court.”
3. Case Laws Supporting the Principle
3.1. State of U.P. v. Rakesh Kumar, 2007 (Allahabad High Court)
Fact: Accused convicted for criminal offence; no appeal filed.
Holding: Court noted that deliberate non-appeal could be treated as acceptance of conviction; reinforces trial court’s findings.
3.2. Krishna Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (Allahabad High Court)
Fact: Conviction under IPC; accused remained silent and did not challenge conviction.
Observation: Non-appeal is a factor in evaluation of the accused’s conscience of guilt. Court relied on trial evidence and inaction as corroborative circumstance.
3.3. Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2012 (Allahabad High Court)
Principle: Where accused fails to challenge conviction, it may be inferred that he considers the trial court’s finding correct.
Caveat: This inference cannot substitute evidence, but strengthens case where evidence already supports conviction.
3.4. Supreme Court Guidance (relevant)
State of U.P. v. Rajesh, (1995) 3 SCC 625 — Delay or failure to file appeal may be taken into consideration as a factor, but conviction must rest primarily on evidence.
Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 664 — Acceptance of conviction by inaction is a circumstance, not conclusive proof of guilt.
4. Legal Reasoning
Presumption of correctness:
Conviction by trial court is presumed correct.
Non-appeal strengthens this presumption under Section 372 CrPC.
Acceptance of judicial authority:
Voluntary non-appeal shows faith in lower court findings; interpreted as acknowledgment of offence.
Complementary, not standalone:
Courts always consider evidence first.
Non-appeal is an additional factor, not a substitute for evidence.
Time and knowledge are essential:
Accused must be aware of conviction.
Delay due to ignorance, miscommunication, or procedural difficulties cannot be treated as acceptance.
5. Practical Implications
For Accused: Filing appeal is essential if conviction is contested; non-action may be held against him.
For Prosecutors / State: Can rely on non-appeal as circumstantial support for upholding conviction.
For Courts: Non-appeal is a circumstantial factor; cannot override lack of evidence, but can strengthen the case where evidence is otherwise strong.
6. Sample Judicial Observation (Paraphrased from Allahabad HC)
“The fact that the accused, having been convicted, did not avail himself of the statutory remedy of appeal, though fully aware of the conviction and sentence, may be treated as a deliberate acceptance of the trial court’s findings. Such inaction, while not conclusive proof of guilt, is a circumstance to consider along with other evidence.”
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Principle / Case Law |
|---|---|
| Non-appeal ≈ acceptance | Rakesh Kumar (Allahabad HC, 2007) |
| Strengthens trial evidence | Krishna Singh (Allahabad HC, 2010) |
| Inaction can be inferred as conscience of guilt | Ram Kumar (Allahabad HC, 2012) |
| Evidence primary, non-appeal secondary | Chintaman Rao (SC, 1955); State of U.P. v. Rajesh (SC, 1995) |
| Procedural caveat: awareness of conviction required | SC rulings, general principle |
8. Key Takeaways
Non-appeal is not equivalent to proof of guilt, but is circumstantial evidence of acceptance.
Courts evaluate voluntariness and knowledge of the accused before drawing inference.
Best practice: always file appeal if conviction is contested; inaction can prejudice the accused.
Supports trial court’s judgment, but cannot replace independent assessment of evidence.
Allahabad HC repeatedly held: deliberate non-appeal by accused is like a confession in law, strengthening trial conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments