RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV VS THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. THE CBI, 2013

RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV VS THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. THE CBI, 2013

CITATION	2013 SCC OnLine Pat 267
DATE OF JUDGMENT	MAY 17, 2013
COURT	PATNA HIGH COURT
CASE TYPE	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2008
PETITIONER	RAJESH RANJAN
RESPONDENT	STATE OF BIHAR
BENCH	V.N. SINHA AND AMARESH KUMAR LAL
REFERRED	SECTION 302, SECTION 120 (B), SECTION 302/34 AND 307/34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 27 OF THE ARMS ACT, SECTION 161 AND 164 OF CRPC

KEYWORDS:

Central Bureau of Investigation, CBI, Patna High Court, Section 164 of CRPC, Ajit Sarkar, Rajan Tiwary, Pappu Yadav

INTRODUCTION:

This case was known by the name of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 230/98 in the judicial records. The case deals with the murder of three persons in the district of Purnea in Bihar, one of them namely Ajit Sarkar, who was a politician. In this case, the name of a famous gangster turned politician of Bihar, namely Pappu Yadav was involved. This case was dealt with by a Two – Judge Bench of the Patna High Court and the verdict was delivered keeping in mind the rules and regulations by which the officers of Central Bureau of Investigation shall deal with any matter related to confession by the accused. While dealing with the matter, the Patna High Court dealt with the provisions mentioned in Section 164 of CRPC deals with the recording of confession and statement and analysed that 24 hours must be given to an accused before recording his statement.

FACTS :

• The case dates back to the killing of three persons, namely Ajit Sarkar, Hirendra Sharma and Asfaq Alam in the year 1998 in Purnea district of Bihar. It was alleged by the prosecution witnesses that Ajit Sarkar was coming in his White Ambassador car when one red bullet motorcycle and one black Yamaha motorcycle intercepted the car in its way. Each of the motorcycles was occupied by two people who started firing guns and weapons indiscriminately at Ajit Sarkar who was sitting in his Ambassador car. 
• According to the witnesses, the accused persons killed the driver of the car Hirendra Sharma, Asfaq Alam, Ajit Sarkar and injured the bodyguard Ramesh Oraon who was sitting in the front seat in broad daylight. The dead bodies were later taken to the hospital by an ambulance and investigation was started the next day. The accused were Anil Yadav, Harish Chaudhary, Amar Yadav and Rajan Tiwary. The supplementary investigation against total 11 suspects was pending under the Magistrate, Purnea. 
• In the meantime, the wife of the deceased Ajit Sarkar requested the State Government to transfer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. The request was accepted and the matter was transferred to the CBI which started investigating the matter in 1999 namely in the matter of R.K. Puram P.S. Case No. 122/99. 
• Rajan Tiwary was arrested by the Delhi Police who was later presented in the court of Shri S.K. Mohi, Metropolitan Magistrate where he made confession regarding the case and was later remanded in the judicial custody of 14 days. In the custody, Rajan Tiwary explained everything regarding the offence and said that Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav sent them to Purnea to kill Ajit Sarkar due to political rivalry. Later, a case was framed against Pappu Yadav and Rajan Tiwary, however, the other two accused remained absconding. However, Rajan TIwary while in Tihar Jail, changed his statement and filed the appeal against the investigating officers that he has been falsely accused in a fabricated case by the Crime Investigation department and the police due to political reasons.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the judicial custody of Rajan Tiwary and the confession made by him in front of the Magistrate is lawful and valid.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

• The three appellants in the present case, namely Rajan Tiwary, Anil Kumar Yadav and Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav presented their arguments through their learned counsels who represented their case. 
• Learned counsel for the appellant Rajan Tiwary contended that the major eye witnesses cannot be relied upon since they have extensively contradicted their own statements. Also, a few witnesses refused to give statements to the Purnea Police however, when the CBI inquired them, they gave their testimonies. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that K.C. Sarkar and other witnesses changed the name of the assailants from the ones mentioned in the fardbeyan.
• Learned counsel for the appellant Rajan Tiwary challenged the confessional statement given by his client. He said that the Magistrate did not disclose the fact that he was a Magistrate on duty and also failed to explain to him that he would not be handed over to the CBI if he did not make his confessional statement. Further, he contended that Rajan Tiwary was given only 45 minutes for reflection on his statement which is contrary to the rule laid down that the accused must be given 24 hours to ponder upon his wish to make a confession.
• The learned counsel also contended that the confession made by Rajan Tiwary is not voluntary since a few pages of the statement record have not been signed by him. Also, his judicial custody for the 12 days is not valid and was termed as wrongful confinement as during that time he was kept incommunicado and was subjected to continuous interrogation.
• Hence, the appellants submitted altogether that the confessional statement made by Rajan Tiwary cannot be relied upon and is fit to be rejected as the same was recorded without observing the safeguards laid down in Section 164 of CRPC.

JUDGEMENT:

The judgement pronounced by the High Court held the contentions from the side of appellant to be true in light of following facts:

• The Magistrate on duty, Sri Saini should have observed all the safeguards while recording the confession, as mentioned in section 164 (2), (3) of CRPC. The court opined that all the subsections must be read in conjunction to protect the rights of citizens as granted by the Indian Constitution.
• The High Court held that the case seemed to be one of coercion and hence the confession recorded by the CBI cannot be relied upon. The grant of 45 minutes for reflection on confession by the accused was held not to be reasonable and insufficient.

Hence, in the view of the gross misappropriations in the trial, the High Court granted the accused persons the benefit of doubt and also considered the 14 – year long trial to be a gross miscarriage of justice as many rules and regulations laid down in the statutes and decided by the precedents were not followed while conducting the trial.

CONCLUSION:

The judgement delivered by Justice V.N. Sinha and Amresh Kumar Lal is a landmark judgement in itself as it tries to explain the importance of the rules laid down in Section 164 of CRPC. The Patna High Court opined that reasonable and sufficient time must be given to the accused for reflecting upon his confessional statement before recording it. The failure to observe the safeguards laid down in Section 164 of CRPC was held to be fatal for the trial and hence the appellants who were previously accused, were directed to be released, taking into account the benefit of doubt given to them due to inappropriate proceedings. The Judges also explained that it was miscarriage of justice to conduct the trial in such an inappropriate manner. 

REFERENCES:

1. https://scconline-cnlu.refread.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?enc=SlRYVC0wMDAwNjMwMTEzJiYmJiY0MCYmJiYmU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmdWxsc2NyZWVuJiYmJiZ0cnVlJiYmJiZyYWplc2ggcmFuamFuIHYuIHN0YXRlIG9mIGJpaGFyJiYmJiZBbGxXb3JkcyYmJiYmZ1NlYXJjaCYmJiYmZmFsc2U=
2. https://scconline-cnlu.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

SUBMITTED BY:  TANYA RAJ, CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, INTERN AT LEGAL VIDHIYA