*********** 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.