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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13844

Bibek Chaudhuri, Chandra Shekhar Jha, JJ
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.953 of 2019|CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1061 of 2019|CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1067 of 2019|CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1112 of 2019|CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1137 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Kumar Singh, Pratik Mishra, Arun Kumar, Raghubir Chandrayan, Satyam Kumar, Rabindra Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, Manish Kumar No. 2, Nilendu Kumar Choudhary
For the Respondents: Sujit Kumar Singh, Ajay Mishra, Shashi Bala Verma, Abhimanyu Sharma

A conviction based on extra-judicial dying declarations that are uncorroborated and not supported by the production of the original document, coupled with total reliance on inadmissible police-recorded confessional statements, is unsustainable under the Indian Evidence Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - S. 25, 26, 32(1) - Indian Penal Code - S. 302/34 - Arms Act - S. 27 - Murder in MNREGA scheme context - Trial Court relied upon inadmissible confessional statements and uncorroborated fard beyan treatable as dying declaration - Medical evidence indicated injury was instantaneously fatal, rendering oral dying declaration impossible - Failure to produce original dying declaration diary - Conviction relying on illegal evidence is unsustainable.

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of a Junior Engineer who refused to record false entries in the Measurement Book for the MNREGA scheme. The conviction was primarily based on a reported dying declaration and alleged confessional statements of the accused recorded by the police during investigation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, noting that confessional statements made to police officers are barred under S. 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, medical testimony discredited the possibility of any dying declaration as the injuries were fatal and immediate. The original document containing the alleged dying declaration was not produced.

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained based on an uncorroborated, unproduced dying declaration and inadmissible confessional statements recorded by police.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be sustained on evidence that violates the mandate of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. An alleged dying declaration must be tested against medical possibility and the original record must be produced in court to be admissible.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction set aside; appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. appellate courts consolidate identical challenges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. establishment of facts and trial proceedings history. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. defence arguments challenging evidentiary admissibility and procedural errors. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. court holds police confessional evidence and uncorroborated dying declaration as inadmissible. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. final acquittal based on failure to prove prosecution case. (Para 37)

The appellants, namely, Sunil Kumar, Balmukun Yadav @ Ravikant, Raju Kumar @ Narendra Kumar Raju, Dharmendra Paswan and Nandan Yadav faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2018 arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 16/2017 in the 1st Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura dated 17.01.2017 of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the learned Trial Judge vide his judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd July 2019 convicted the above-named appellants and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for one year each. The above-named convicts were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default further imprisonment of 03 months each.

2. The said order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd July 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Sheikhpura is under Challenge in the instant appeal.

3. Since, all the appeals arise against the one and identical judgment, we propose to dispose of the appeals by the following judgment.

Factual Matrix.

4. One, Santosh Kumar Singh, Inspector of Police and the then S.H.O. of the Sheikhpura police station recorded a suo motu statement on 17th January 2017 at about 7:30 pm at Sheikhpura District Hospital stating inter alia that on the same date he along with S.I. Ram Bhajan Singh and some members of Armed Police Forces were conducting patrolling duty at Teen Muhani More. During their duty, the SHO received a phone call in his official Mobile number bearing 9431822682 from a mobile number 8409228344 at about 6:10 pm disclosing the name of the caller as Ujjwal Rai, a Junior Engineer, MNREGA, Sheikhpura Block, informed him that he took shelter inside Maria Ashram, Sheikhpura, One Sunil Kumar, P.R.S., Karya Panchayat was calling him to come outside the gate to record some false entries in his Measurement Book.

5. In order to work out the said information, the above named police officer reached Maria Ashram with Force and found that a person was lying on the ground near the gate of the said Ashram and another person was running to escape. The police party tried to chase him but the said person fled away scaling the boundary wall of the Ashram and the field thereafter. The person who was lying on the ground disclosed himself as Ujjwal Raj. He received gunshot injury immediately the police officer took him by his police jeep to the hospital on the way he disclosed that he was being threatened by the Mukhiya of Karya Panchayat . Balmukund Yadav @ Ravi Kant, and P.R.S. Sunil Kumar to make wrong entry in the Measurement Book Book in respect of the works conducted under the MNREGA Scheme which he refused to do. On the date of occurrence Sunil Kumar called him in front of the gate of Maria Ashram when he refused to go there, one Nandan Yadav, Raju Kumar, Dharmendra Paswan entered inside the Ashram and forcibly brought him in front of the gate of the said Ashram. He saw Balmukund Yadav standing there with a pistol in his hand and P.R.S. Sunil Kumar was also with him. The victim was not going outside of the gate out where the then Balmukund instructed Nandan to fire at him. Nandan resorted to firing which st

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