High Court allowed appeal directing trial court to return gold chain and necklace (M.Os 4 & 5) which belonged to appellant, noting no dispute on their ownership.
Directed trial Court to hand over M.Os. 4 & 5 (gold chain and necklace) to the appellant after receiving an undertaking to produce them as required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRL.A.(MD) No.309 of 2017 in
Crl.M.P(MD)No.7135 of 2017
Ida Selvakumari
... Appellant/Petitioner/P.W.4
-vs-
For Appellant : Mr.M.Suri For R2 : Mr.R.Ramachandran Additional Public Prosecutor
2
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
This appears to be a third round of litigation. The appellant's husband was convicted for the major offence under Section 302 of IPC in S.C.No.107 of 2010. The charge No.5 pertains to an offence under Section 201 of IPC, which states that the accused had taken 5 sovereigns of gold chain 1 ¼ sovereigns of Neckless belong to the appellant along with other jewels of the deceased.
2.Pending trial, the appellant filed an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed. The trial Court convicted the accused. During the pendency of the appeal, another application was filed by the appellant under Section 482 r/w 452 of Cr.P.C. This Court directed the appellant to once again approach the trial Court. Accordingly, the appellant withdrew the application and filed an application before the trial Court in view of the liberty granted by this Court. The trial Court once again dismissed the application and hence, the present appeal has been filed. In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.
4.Despite the notice was served on the first respondent and his name was also printed in the cause list, none appears for R1.
5.A perusal of the charge would show that M.Os.4 & 5 belong to the appellant. Now the proceedings have ended. Once the properties belong to the appellant and there is no dispute on this factual position and the same cannot be denied to her. After all, these two material evidence have been marked by the prosecution in support of the charges framed. Now, the charges framed are accordingly proved against the accused. Therefore, the appellant's jewels cannot be kept by the Court or confiscated. There is no other contra claim.
6.In such view of the matter, appeal stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to hand over the M.Os.4 & 5 in S.C.No.107 of 2010 to the appellant after getting an undertaking to produce the properties as and when required by the trial court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (T&P)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
3
To
AM/CP
TE/KK/SAR-I : 11/09/2017 : 3P/4C
CRL.A.(MD) No.309 of 2017 IN Crl.M.P(MD)No.7135 of 2017 04.09.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the material objects belonging to the appellant can be retained by the court after the trial concludes.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ida Selvakumari
A.Roosewelt
State
M.M.Sundresh
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
