BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.A.(MD).No.148 of 2000 and C.M.P.No.900 of 2000 Backiam ... Appellant Vs 1.State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivaganga District. 2.Annamalai 3.Krishnan 4.Murugan ... Respondents PRAYER Appeal is filed under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment in S.C.No.39 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivaganga, dated 30.06.1999. !For Appellant ... Mr.D.Venkatesh ^For Respondent 1 ... Mr.P.Rajendran Government Advocate For Respondent 2 ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen :JUDGMENT
***********
The appellant herein is the complainant in a case, which came to be tried
in S.C.No.39 of 1997 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.
2. In short, the prosecution case was that the Brother of the complainant
had been done to death by four persons and several valuables were taken away by
them. Out of the four accused persons, one died before trial and three accused
were tried and they were acquitted of the charges against them. While acquitting
the accused, the Trial Court has ordered confiscation to the State of the
valuables that were recovered on the basis of a confession statement of the
accused. Aggrieved by this finding, the defacto complainant has filed the
present Criminal Appeal.
3. MOs 2 to 38 in the case have been identified by PW-9 – Meenal, PW-10 –
Chinnasamy, PW-11 – Thiruvelu, PW-12 – Valli, PW-13 – Sundaram, PW-14 –
Sundaralingam, PW-15 – Jeyamani, PW-17 – Pandiarajan, PW-18 – Jeyachandran, PW-
19 -Jeyaraman, PW-22 – Muthazagu, PW-24 – Perumal, PW-26 – Balraj, PW-27 –
Murugan, PW-28 – Bose, PW-30 – Thayammal, PW-33 – Tamiarasan, PW-34 – Karuppiah,
PW-35 – Muthiah, PW-37 – Chellammal, PW-38 – Maruthu, PW-39 – Mariappan, PW-40 –
Bandhanam, PW-42 – Banjavarnam, PW-43 – Srinivasan, PW-44 – Banjavarnam, PW-45 –
Duraisamy and PW-50 – Ramasamy, as those that had been pledged by them to the
deceased, who was engaged in conducting a Pawn Broker business.
4. I have perused the Judgment of the Lower Court and I find that the
Order, directing confiscation in favour of the State, has been made on suspicion
regarding the veracity of the witnesses, who speak about the pledging of the
ornaments. As held in Dhanraj v. State reported in AIR 1965 RAJASTHAN 238, the
confession of the accused may be utilised for the purpose of determining as to
who was entitled to articles recovered in a particular case on the basis of
confession. The entire statement of the accused could be looked into, even
though the same might not have been admissible at the trial either under Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act, or under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
5. A perusal of the recovery mahazars would show that the articles seized
in this case were stolen from the deceased. From the evidence of PW-1,
complainant, it is seen that the deceased had no issue, but an adopted daughter,
who had been given in marriage to PW-2. Such adopted daughter also died, leaving
behind two children. From the evidence, it is clear that the complainant, the
deceased, PW-2 and other family members made a close knit unit.
6. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be met, if the
articles are directed to be returned to PW-1, complainant in the case. However,
towards providing against any rival claims in future, the appellant should be
required to furnish security by way of bond to the satisfaction of the Lower
Court.
7. Accordingly, this Court makes the following Order:-
Such part of the Judgment dated 30.06.1999 on the file of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Sivaganga made in S.C.No.39 of 1997, which directs the
confiscation of MOs 2 to 38 in favour of the State shall stand set aside.
MOs 2 to 38 are directed to be returned by the Trial Court to the appellant
herein by name Mrs.Backiam, W/o.Arumugam Servai, Vembankudi, Sivagangai
District, on her furnishing a bond for the value of articles to the satisfaction
of the Lower Court.
The Criminal Appeal is ordered as indicated above. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NB
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.
2.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Sivaganga District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.