The prosecution’s “star material” was a confession allegedly extracted by villagers under threat, and the trial court never even put it to the accused, the Patna High Court has said, acquitting a man sentenced to life for the 2003 kidnapping and murder of his 10-year-old brother-in-law.
Patna: The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence of Rajesh Gupta @ Rajesh Prasad Gupta for the 2003 kidnapping and murder of a schoolboy in Saharsa, holding that an extra-judicial confession that was not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used against him, and that the remaining evidence of last seen, motive and recovery did not establish guilt [Rajesh Gupta @ Rajesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar].
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh and Justice Ansul, in a judgment authored by Justice Ansul, allowed the appeal pending since 2007 and declined to remand the case for a fresh Section 313 examination, given that the incident dates back to 2003.
The case
According to the prosecution, the boy, a Class 2 student living with his maternal uncle at Shahpur in the Nauhatta police station area, went out early on September 26, 2003 and did not return. The appellant was married to the boy’s sister, and the prosecution alleged a dispute between the families after the girl’s family refused to send her with him, and that he and his father had threatened to kill the boy days earlier.
A villager said he had seen the appellant taking the boy away on a bicycle that morning. Villagers then questioned the appellant, who allegedly admitted, after being threatened with the police and with beating, that he had strangled the boy and thrown him into the Koshi river. The body was recovered two days later at Baluaha Ghat. In 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Saharsa convicted the appellant under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A confession under threat, never put to the accused
The Court found the alleged confession doubtful on its own terms. The FIR itself recorded that the appellant admitted guilt only after being threatened, and the witnesses gave conflicting accounts of whether he was frightened or “asked lovingly.” Neither the village chaukidar who took him to the police station nor the Investigating Officer was examined. The Bench noted that a confession caused by threat is irrelevant under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, and one recorded in police presence is hit by Sections 25 and 26.
Most importantly, relying on Tara Singh v. State, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar and State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram, the Court held that circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC must be excluded from consideration. It observed:
“The star material of the prosecution case, that is, the so-called extra-judicial confession, has not been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The omission has caused real prejudice, since the appellant was thereby denied the opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the so-called confession is said to have been made.”
The Court also found the first Section 313 question itself vague, as it rolled a three-day window of kidnapping, killing and disposal into a single question that did not match the prosecution’s own case.
Motive ‘flimsy’, FIR delayed, IO not examined
On motive, the Bench observed that a matrimonial discord that had not produced even a Section 498A case “is not likely to be so serious as to drive a person to murder a ten year old child who had nothing to do with the dispute,” and termed the motive “a flimsy one.” It noted that the FIR was lodged more than 30 hours after the child went missing, although the appellant had been brought to the police station the night before, which robbed the case of spontaneity under Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The Court was critical of the investigation. The Investigating Officer was never examined, which denied the appellant the chance to prove material improvements in witnesses’ statements under Tahsildar Singh. The IO also did not seize the clothes or sacred thread by which the child was identified, or the towel allegedly tied around his neck. There was nothing to connect the alleged throwing of the body into the flooded Koshi with its recovery two days later at Baluaha Ghat.
Acquittal, no remand
Considering that this was a last-seen case with the body recovered about two days later, that only one witness saw the boy with the appellant, that the confession was not put to him, that the IO collected neither the clothes nor the towel, and that the motive was not substantial, the Court said it had “no option but to acquit the appellant.” It added that the occurrence was of 2003 and “a remand for a fresh examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. at this distance of time would be unjust.” The conviction of February 27, 2007 and the sentence of March 15, 2007 were set aside, and the appellant, on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds.
If you know of a child in danger or distress, call CHILDLINE at 1098.
Case Title: Rajesh Gupta @ Rajesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 574 of 2007]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh and Justice Ansul, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Fazle Karim for the Appellant; APP Dilip Kumar Sinha for the State