Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36213
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
G. GIRISH, J
SHAJIMON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 388/2018
R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), GEO PAUL, SRI.C.R.PRAMOD, SMT.V.S.SIMI, SMT.PRIYANKA PAUL, SHRI.NAVEEN T.U., SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P., SRI.SANGEETH RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court emphasized the necessity of evaluating all evidence fairly in custody disputes, highlighting adherence to natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 452 - Custody of property - The order for the release of a gold ingot to the additional second respondent was challenged - The learned Magistrate relied on a confession for custody determination, disregarding evidence of coercion presented by the petitioner - The courts failed to address the reliability of evidence from both sides - The order was set aside and remanded for fresh disposal. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were not adhered to in the evaluation of evidence regarding the custody of the gold ingot. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The case involved a gold ingot recovered from a jewellery shop, claimed by the additional second respondent after a theft. The petitioner alleged coercion by police in obtaining the gold ingot.
Findings of Court:
The orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge were found erroneous and against natural justice principles.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of evidence regarding the custody of the gold ingot and the adherence to natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair evaluation of all evidence before determining custody, highlighting the importance of natural justice.
Result: Revisions allowed; orders set aside and remanded for fresh disposal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. c.c.no.413/2017 was a case (Para 2) |
O R D E R
The order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha under Section 452 Cr.P.C for the release of a gold ingot to PW1 in C.C.No.413/2017 (additional second respondent herein), which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha, is under challenge in this revision.
2. C.C.No.413/2017 was a case related to house breaking and theft in the house of the additional second respondent herein, committed on 07.01.2006. The stolen items included 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
After the elapse of three years, a person apprehended in connection with another case is said to have confessed the commission of theft in the house of the additional second respondent.
On the basis of the above confession, the Muvattupuzha Police is said to have reached the jewellery shop of the petitioner herein at a place called Odanavattom in Kottarakkara on 16.10.2009, and recovered a gold ingot weighing 199.800 gms which is said to have been moulded out of the gold ornaments stolen from the house of the additional second respondent. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.858/2013, and the additional second respondent filed C.M.P No.973/2014 before the Trial Court for the custody of the above gold ingot.
However, in the trial that ensued, the learned Magistrate found the evidence pertaining to the aforesaid recovery unreliable, and accordingly acquitted the accused as per the judgment dated 23.06.2017.
In the aforesaid judgment, the learned Magistrate directed the release of the above gold ingot marked as MO1 to the additional second respondent herein, by dismissing C.M.P.No.858/2013 and allowing C.M.P.No.973/2014 vide common order.
Though the petitioner herein challenged the above order by filing Crl.A.No.219/2017 and Crl.A.No.220/2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha declined to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, and held that the additional second respondent is entitled for the custody of the gold ingot.
It is the aforesaid judgments passed in Crl.A.No.219/2017 and Crl.A.No.220/2017 which are under challenge in these revisions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the additional second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent.
4. The learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the additional second respondent is entitled for the custody of the disputed gold ingot upon the reasoning that the confession made by the accused about the disposal of the stolen item, though not admissible in the criminal trial, could be relied on for the purpose of deciding the person who is best entitled to have possession of the said property, while deciding an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C. Thus, the evidence pertaining to the confession made by the accused about the sale of the gold ornaments to the petitioner herein, and the recovery of the above gold in the form of ingot after the elapse of 3½ years, has been relied on by the learned Magistrate for ordering the above gold item to be handed over to the additional second respondent. However, the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein as PW4, and three other witnesses as DW1 to DW3, about the alleged highhanded act of the Muvattupuzha Police taking the petitioner to illegal custody, subjecting him to torture and the procurement of the gold ingot under coercion, has not been considered by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. It could be seen from the records of the case that PW4 stated before the Trial Court that the Muvattupuzha Police came to his jewellery shop at Odanavattom in Kottarakkara on 08.10.2009 while he was not in that shop and asked the Manager of the jewellery shop (DW1) to call him. Accordingly, PW4 is said to have reached his jewellery shop from where the police is said to have taken him to Muvattupuzha Police Station and kept under illegal custody and subjected to threat and coercion to brin
