'No Understanding Of Evidence': Patna HC Acquits Murder Accused, Orders Training After Trial Judge Relied On Police Confession To Convict

The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of several accused in a murder case, strongly criticising the trial court for relying on inadmissible evidence and observing that the trial judge “does not have any idea about the relevancy, admissibility, and acceptance of evidence in a criminal trial.” A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing a batch of criminal appeals challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22 July 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case arose from a suo motu statement recorded by the then SHO of Sheikhpura Police Station on 17 January 2017. It was alleged that the victim, a Junior Engineer under the MNREGA scheme, was shot after he refused to make false entries in official records. The victim allegedly named the accused persons while being taken to hospital, but subsequently succumbed to the injuries. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom two independent witnesses turned hostile. The case primarily rested on the alleged dying declaration recorded by the police officer and the statements of police personnel. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the entire case was based on an uncorroborated extra-judicial dying declaration, which was unreliable and not supported by any independent witness. It was further argued that the trial court erroneously relied upon confessional statements recorded by the investigating officer, which are inadmissible in law. It was also submitted that the alleged dying declaration was doubtful in view of medical evidence suggesting that the victim would not have been in a position to speak. The High Court, at the outset, examined the legal principles governing dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It reiterated that while a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, its admissibility and reliability depend upon whether it has been properly recorded and whether the declarant was in a fit condition to make such a statement. Applying these principles, the Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution case. It noted that the alleged dying declaration was not recorded as such but was merely reflected in the fardbeyan of the police officer, and the original statement of the deceased was not produced. Further, medical evidence indicated that the victim, having suffered critical injuries to vital organs, would not have been able to speak. The Court also found fault with the trial court's reliance on confessional statements recorded by the investigating officer, holding that such statements are clearly inadmissible in evidence. Taking strong exception to the conduct of the trial judge, the Court observed:We have already noted that we are not only surprised and astonished to note that a Judicial Officer in the rank of Additional Sessions Judge does not know that police officer cannot record a confessional statement of the accused while they are in custody and that statement is not admissible in evidence. The learned Trial Judge considered this statement as admissible in evidence marked them as exhibits and based his order of conviction on such confessional statement. The learned Trial Judge does know that he has adopted not only a wrong process but an illegal procedure in convicting the accused persons. 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. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that 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, subject to the final decision to be taken by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in his Lordship's administrative side. However, we are of the strong view that, by accepting the inadmissible evidence, the accused persons/appellants were unnecessarily compelled to face sentence for years.”The Court further observed that by relying on inadmissible evidence, the trial court had adopted an illegal procedure, resulting in wrongful conviction and prolonged incarceration of the accused, thereby violating Article 21.In view of these infirmities, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants. The Court also recommended that the concerned trial judge be divested of criminal trial work and be imparted specialised training in criminal law and evidence, subject to administrative decision by the Chief Justice. Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar (And Tagged Matters).Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 953 of 2019.Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Pratik Mishra; Mr. Arun Kumar; Mr. Raghubir Chandrayan; Mr. ...

'No Understanding Of Evidence': Patna HC Acquits Murder Accused, Orders Training After Trial Judge Relied On Police Confession To Convict

Rushil Batra

Tags