RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I . A. No. 471 of 2009 The appellant Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav has filed the present interlocutory application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to suspend/stay the order of conviction dated 14th February, 2008 by which he was found guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10000 (ten thousand), in default whereof he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The above judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -XI, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 976 of 1999.

(2.) THE case related to the murder of one Ajit Sarkar by the accused persons in conspiracy with each other on 14th June, 1998 for which K. Hat Police Station Case No. 230 of 1998 was registered against six - seven unknown persons. The investigation of the c;.ase was transferred to the CBI and, accordingly, R.C. Case No. 12(S) of 1998 was registered which ended in forwarding of the appellant and other accused persons who were tried alongwith the petitioner on the above noted Sessions Trial which ultimately resulted in the order of conviction as indicated above passed on 14th February, 2008. We have heard Sri R.K. Anand, and Sri Majid Memon, Senior Advocates appearing for the appellant in the present Interlocutory Application. We have also heard Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, Special Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not been found committing the murder of Ajit Sarkar directly by doing a specific act by that direction, rather he was found guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and that conviction was recorded singly against the appellant. By drawing the court 'sattention towards the provision of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, it was contended that at least two persons committing an act which could be illegal or which could not be illegal by legal means, could only be said to have conspired, whereas the appellant was solely convicted for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended in this connection that the evidence was too feeble to justify the conviction and that too was coming through confessional statement of a coaccused, namely, Rajan Tiwari, which evidence could be debated as not admissible against the other accused. It was further contended in the above connection that the confession was recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi when said Rajan Tiwari was arrested in connection with other offence and that was treated to be voluntary and it was contended that the facts constituting an offence, coming through confession, could not be a material evidence, strong enough to record the conviction. It was contended that the appellant being a practicing politician, having been the Member of the Lok Sabha on account of being elected on many occasions, had many political foes who could have implicated him for the reasons other than furthering the ends of justice.