'No Idea About Evidence': Patna HC Frees 5 Murder Convicts, Raps Trial Judge for Basic Blunders

In a scathing verdict delivered on March 30, 2026, a Patna High Court bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha acquitted five men—Sunil Kumar, Balmukund Yadav @ Ravikant, Raju Kumar @ Narendra Kumar Raju, Dharmendra Paswan, and Nandan Yadav—in a high-profile murder case linked to alleged MNREGA corruption. The court overturned their life sentences, blasting the trial judge for relying on inadmissible police-recorded confessions and a dubious dying declaration. The appeals stemmed from Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2018, where the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sheikhpura, had convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act on July 22, 2019.

From MNREGA Dispute to Deadly Shooting

The case originated on January 17, 2017, at Sheikhpura's Maria Ashram. Ujjwal Raj, a Junior Engineer in the MNREGA scheme, was allegedly shot in the chest after refusing demands by local Panchayat leaders—including appellant Sunil Kumar (PRS, Karya Panchayat) and Balmukund Yadav—to falsify entries in his Measurement Book. According to the prosecution's fardbeyan by then-SHO Santosh Kumar Singh, Raj named the accused while being rushed to hospital in a police jeep, claiming Nandan Yadav fired on Balmukund's orders. Raj died en route from gunshot wounds rupturing his lung, heart, and pericardium.

Police registered Sheikhpura PS Case No. 16/2017, leading to a charge-sheet by SDPO Amit Sharan. Trial featured eight witnesses—mostly police personnel—with two independents turning hostile. No public eyewitnesses emerged despite the busy location near a Christian ashram.

Defense Dismantles Prosecution's Pillars

Appellants' counsel, led by Senior Advocate Rajesh Kumar Singh and others like Pratik Mishra, argued the case hinged on an uncorroborated extra-judicial dying declaration lacking the original diary entry where SHO allegedly recorded it. They highlighted:

  • Medical impossibility : Autopsy surgeon PW-4 opined the victim, shot at close range with charred entry wounds, couldn't speak due to instant vital organ rupture— "the injured would die within few seconds."
  • No original dying declaration : Only SHO's secondary fardbeyan existed; no signature or thumb impression from victim.
  • Inadmissible confessions : Trial court accepted police-recorded statements from accused in custody, barred by Sections 25-26 Evidence Act .
  • Suspect witnesses : All supporters were police; CDRs linked phones vaguely; wife's complaint vanished; no seized clothes for forensics.

Prosecution leaned on SHO's (PW-6) account, police backups (PWs 1,3,7,8), and post-mortem confirming homicide, insisting the dying declaration under Section 32(1) Evidence Act sufficed despite no doctor certification.

Court Cuts Through Evidentiary Smoke

The bench meticulously applied precedents like Irfan v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060) on dying declaration scrutiny, Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254 for voluntariness checks, and Munna Raj v. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104 affirming FIRs as declarations—only if fit. Here, no proximity to death, no medical fitness note, and contradictions doomed it.

Key flaw : "Fard beyan was not made on the basis of the statement by the deceased... the original dying declaration has not been produced." Medical evidence trumped: "PW-4 clearly stated that a person who is having injury of rupture of pleura, lung, pericardium and heart cannot speak."

The court lambasted trial reliance on confessions: "A Judicial Officer in the rank of Additional Sessions Judge does not know that police officer cannot record a confessional statement ."

Blistering Barbs from the Bench

Key Observations :

"The learned Trial Judge, with all humility we must first note, does not have any idea about the relevancy, admissibility, and acceptance of evidence in a criminal trial."

"If we accept the opinion of the Medical Officer (PW-4), the deceased died before arrival of police."

"By accepting the inadmissible evidence, the accused persons/appellants were unnecessarily compelled to face sentence for years. This obviously violates the solidarity provision of Article 21 of the Constitution ."

"The learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Court, Sheikhpura should be ceased of power of criminal trial and he should be imparted special training on BNS , BNSS and specially on BSA ."

As noted in contemporary reports, the ruling underscored how police-heavy testimonies in a public murder raised red flags, with no independent corroboration.

Acquittal and a Call for Judicial Cleanup

"All the appeals are allowed... The appellants are acquitted of the charges and shall be released at once." The bench set aside the conviction, ordering the trial judge's reassignment and training referral to the Chief Justice— a rare administrative nudge protecting Article 21 rights against prolonged wrongful detention.

This decision reinforces safeguards on dying declarations, demanding originals, medical corroboration, and zero tolerance for confessional inadmissibles, potentially reshaping reliance on police narratives in Indian murder trials.