LawFinder.news
LawFinder.news

Patna High Court Overturns Conviction Due to Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence

LAW FINDER NEWS NETWORK | April 27, 2026 at 1:29 PM
Patna High Court Overturns Conviction Due to Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence

Life Imprisonment Sentences Quashed for Lack of Corroboration and Procedural Irregularities in Dying Declaration


In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has overturned the life imprisonment sentences of Sunil Kumar and others, originally convicted for the murder of Junior Engineer Ujjwal Raj. The court found that the convictions were primarily based on a dying declaration that lacked corroboration and was not presented in its original form. The bench, consisting of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Chandra Shekhar Jha, criticized the trial court for relying on inadmissible evidence, including confessional statements recorded by the police, which are impermissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.


The case stemmed from a suo motu statement recorded by the SHO of Sheikhpura Police Station, who claimed that the deceased had made a dying declaration implicating the accused. However, the court noted that the original dying declaration was never produced, and medical evidence indicated that the deceased could not have spoken due to his injuries.


Additionally, the court highlighted procedural lapses, including the trial judge's acceptance of confessional statements recorded in police custody, which contravenes Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment emphasized the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that the appellants' rights were violated due to the reliance on inadmissible evidence.


The court ordered the immediate release of the appellants and recommended special training for the trial judge in handling criminal cases, underscoring the judiciary's duty to prevent such errors in the future.


Bottom Line:

Dying declaration's admissibility questioned due to lack of corroboration and absence of the original declaration. Conviction based on inadmissible evidence violates Article 21 of the Constitution.


Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32(1), Section 25, Section 26, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21


Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2874610

Share this article: