RAJ KUMAR TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -I, Palamu in Cr. Appeal No. 125 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Palamu was affirmed for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201/364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE informant had raised suspicion about the complicity of the Petitioner and two others for the alleged murder of his son Prajwal who had gone outside to play but he did not return back till 7:00 p.m., however, he suspected that his son was kidnapped by the accused persons as his son was seen in the company of the Petitioner and two others by the witness Vinay Tiwari. On the recovery of the dead body Sections 302/201 were added, though the case was earlier instituted under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel Mr. Bajaj further submitted that there could not be a single recovery pursuant to the confessional statement of the three different accused persons at three different stages. The accused Alok Kumar, if at all, had confessed his guilt which led to the discovery of the dead body it shall be presumed that pursuant to his confessional statement the dead body was recovered and therefore, the Petitioner Raj Kumar Tiwari, whose confessional statement was recorded at 1:25 p.m., cannot be held to be the confession of first person, on whose confession, discovery of relevant fact was made. There is no other legal evidence against the Petitioner so as to implicate him except suspicion raised by the father of the deceased.