Rohtas, Bihar v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1443 of 2023 Saket Soni @ Lullu Soni S/o Late Rampyare Sao, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nohatta, P.S. Nohatta, District : Rohtas, Bihar, ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh, (wrongly mentioned as P.S. Kotwali in impugned order). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 24.03.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh in S.T. No. 21/2019, wherein the order has been passed regarding disposal of the gold ornaments which has been seized from the appellant. The appellant claiming being the owner of the said seized gold ornaments, has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Jagdamba Prasad 2 Pandey (PW-05), who was posted as Branch Manager of Manappuram Gold Loan Ambikapur, lodged a report to the effect that on 04.01.2017, at around 09:15 A.M., he opened the ofÏce of Manappuram Gold Loan and was conducting daily work. Junior Assistant Pawan Gupta, Housekeeping Assistant Shivmangani Ekka (PW-15), Gate Keeper Devendra Kumar Singh (PW-18) were present in the ofÏce. Everyone were doing their work when at around 04:15 P.M., a female customer Sonu Jaiswal and other customers were already present in the ofÏce, then two persons came to the ofÏce and sat next to her and inquired about the loan, thereafter, they left. Again after about 05 minutes the same two persons came and sat next to her, behind them their other companions pushed the Gate Keeper Devendra Kumar Singh and the customers present there, took them inside by pointing a pistol at them and made the customers stand aside by showing pistol, assaulted the complainant and threatened him also snatched the key of the safe and took him to the safe room, opened the cupboard and kept about 12 kg gold worth two crore fifty lakh rupees in a black coloured bag and took out about one lakh fifty thousand rupees from the cash counter and kept it in the bag. Apart from this, they took out the camera and router installed in the ofÏce and took away the mobile, cash and valuables of all the employees and customers, locked all the people present in the safe and ran away by locking the main gate of the ofÏce from outside. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, First Information Report (Ex.P-29) was registered by Police Station, Ambikapur under Crime No. 07/2017 under Section 397 IPC. During the investigation, the crime scene was inspected, the accused persons who committed the robbery were identified on the basis of CCTV footage at the time of the incident or the things left by the accused at the scene. The accused were arrested and 3 their memorandum statements were recorded and on the basis of their memorandum statements, the seized properties were confiscated. The pistol and cartridges used in the crime were examined. Panchnama of breaking the lock of the crime scene and Panchnama of camera footage recovery were prepared. A complaint was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur regarding conducting an identification parade. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Other co-accused Suresh Karmakar, Sanjay Gupta, Manish Singh, Uttam Paswan, Govind Chero are absconding since the incident. Charge-sheets were presented against other accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur at different times. From where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, wherefrom the case was received on transfer to the Court of 3rd Additional Session Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) for trial. During the trial, co-accused Virendra Swarnkar was not present and he has been declared absconding. The name of the present appellant has come to the light from the memorandum statements of the other co-accused persons and the allegation against the present appellant is that he is the owner of a jewelry shop where the other co-accused persons have sold the stolen gold and he has purchased the same and melted it to destroy the evidence. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 73 documents along with Articles-A to Articles-H in support of its case. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence. 4 5. The learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties, acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 412 of IPC and directed that the articles seized vide Ex.P/26 i.e. gold be confiscated after the limitation of appeal, in case the appeal against acquittal is not preferred. 6. After being acquitted from the charges the appellant/accused has preferred an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for Supurdnama of the seized gold ornaments from appellant vide Ex.P/26 before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) which has been dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2023. Hence, the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the order regarding disposal of gold ornaments seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/26 is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. He further submits that the appellant is the owner of the gold ornaments seized vide Ex.P/26, therefore, he is entitled for possession of the same. He also submits that Sub Inspector Priyesh John (P.W-15), who has seized the alleged gold ornaments, has categorically stated that gold ornaments were seized from the jewelry shop of the appellant itself vide Ex.P/26. Further, the learned trial Court has recorded the finding that the charges under Section 412 of I.P.C is not made out against the appellant and prosecution has failed to prove that gold ornaments seized from the appellant was subject matter of the theft, therefore, the appellant be granted the possession of the gold article seized vide Ex.P/26 of which the bill was also presented to the police while the seizure was prepared but the same was not taken in the investigation by the police. The disposal of gold ornaments seized from 5 the appellant vide Ex.P/26 in question has now nothing to do with the case in which it has been seized because the trial has already been concluded and the appellant has been acquitted from the charges under Section 412 of I.P.C, therefore, appellant may be granted custody of the gold ornaments seized vide Ex P/26. He also submits that the gold ornaments seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/26 in question is not released to appellant then it will cause material loss to the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment of learned trial Court is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) and submitted that the learned trial Court has concluded its observation with regard to involvement of the accused/appellant in the aforesaid crime which is just and proper and the defence has not rebutted any of the finding or evidences which were produced during the proceeding of trial. She further submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of trial Court is just and proper, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and records of the trial Court. 10. From perusal of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur it transpires that the learned trial Court in paragraph 48 of the impugned order has held that vide seizure sheet Ex.P.-72, a white coloured plastic on which Perfect Tailor and Readymade Garment Jeans, Cutpiece Centre Dhanbad, Bihar is written in English, in which blue jeans, shirt and handkerchief left by the accused 6 at the scene of the incident are seized and vide seizure sheet Ex.P.-73, four hard copies of CCTV footage installed in Ambikapur ofÏce of Manappuram Gold Loan Branch, one DVD cassette and pen drive provided by the IT expert of the company have been seized. 11. Similarly, in paragraph 49 of the impugned order, it has been held that no person has made any claim in respect of the property seized during the investigation by the Investigating Police OfÏcers, which is said to have been seized from the accused persons or on their information. When the accused persons were questioned in this regard under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied that any property was seized from them. It has been further held that vide seizure sheet Ex.P.-6, gold jewelry and cash amounting to one lakh rupees have been seized and the said seized gold jewelry and cash amounting to one lakh rupees should be confiscated after the appeal period and the seized document will be a part of the registry letter and passbook record, similarly, seizure memo Ex.P.-26, the seized gold jewelry and Samsung Android mobile should be confiscated after the appeal period. It is pertinent to mention here that though the appellant and co-accused persons have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them but there are some other co-accused persons who are still absconding in relation to the present case. Therefore, the above seized articles were directed to be kept in safe custody till the trial of the absconding accused persons, because the said property will be important for prosecution evidence in relation to the absconding accused persons. 12. In the application filed under Section 452 CrPC, the learned trial Court has observed that properties mentioned by the applicant to be handed over on the delivery deed have been reflected in the property seizure 7 sheet Ex.P. 26. The conclusion about how the property mentioned in this
Decision
property seizure sheet Ex.P. 26 will be disposed of has been given by the concerned trial Court in paragraph 49 of the impugned judgment. If the applicant or other accused or any other concerned person is aggrieved by the order made by the trial court in its judgment regarding the disposal of the property, then they are free to challenge the order made in connection with the disposal of the property as per law. In such a situation, when the disposal of the applied property has been done by the trial Court in its judgment and decision has been made by a decree in which there is neither any provision for allotment of the property to the applicant nor any order has been passed in this regard. In such a situation, the applicant's application should be not accepted. 13. Thus, looking to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence, has rightly recorded the findings and passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any scope for interference in the judgment impugned. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance, if necessary. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti