RAM NARESH RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (CAV) - The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for suspension of order of conviction passed against the appellant by judgment dated 02.06.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2004/ 130 of 2009 arising out of Dumra P.S.Case No. 111 of 1998 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge I, Sitamarhi convicting the appellant along with 14 other accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 333, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 Penal Code and in addition thereto a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each and, in default thereof, they have been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. They have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Sec. 324 Penal Code and, in addition thereto, a fine of Rs. 2000.00 each has also been imposed and, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. Further the convicted accused persons have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under section 323 Penal Code and in addition thereto, each of them have been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each and, in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three months. They have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 Penal Code and, in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for six months. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the trial court has completely ignored the mandatory provisions as contained in Sections 273 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") in conducting the trial of the appellant which has caused miscarriage of justice, and as a result thereof, the entire trial of Sessions Trial No. 337 of 2014 stood vitiated. The examination-in-Chief of not even a single prosecution witness was recorded in presence of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 2014, rather, the photocopy of the examination-in-Chief of the witnesses examined in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2004 has been used in Sessions Trial No.337 of 2004 and the appellant has been prejudicially been affected thereby.

(3.) Mr. Singh has further contended that in the aforesaid case charges were framed separately on different dates against different sets of accused persons in three Sessions Trial. The three Sessions Trial were never clubbed/amalgamated right from the stage of framing of charge till recording of statements of the accused persons under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. However, a common judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed on 02.06.2015 and 04.06.2015 respectively by the learned trial court and on 02.06.2015 whereby the appellant along with other convicted accused persons was taken into custody after canceling their bail bonds. Mr. Singh has contended that by order dated 23.06.2015 the appellant's sentence has been suspended and he has been granted bail by this Court. He submits that at the relevant time when the judgment of conviction was passed the appellant was a sitting Member of Bihar Legislative Assembly. Due to conviction recorded by the trial court, he has been disqualified to contest the election in view of the provisions prescribed under Sec. 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short "the Act").