Chattisgarh High Court
Buddha Prakash Soni (Died) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 March, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2026:CGHC:10684
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 653 of 2005
Reserved on 11/02/2026
Delivered on 02/03/2026
1 - Buddha Prakash Soni (Died) Through Legal Heirs-
1.1 - Kamal Soni S/o. Late Buddha Prakash Soni. R/o Mochiwara, Near
Sankhat Bhawan, Behind Fort, Tehsil And District Churu (Rajasthan)
1.2 - Deepak Soni S/o Late Buddha Prakash Soni, R/o Mochiwara, Near
Sankhat Bhawan, Behind Fort, Tehsil And District Churu (Rajasthan)
1.3 - Smt. Kiran Devi Soni W/o Late Buddha Prakash Soni, R/o
Mochiwara, Near Sankhat Bhawan, Behind Fort, Tehsil And District
Churu (Rajasthan)
... Appellants(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh
2. Ganeshram Kewat S/o Setram Kewat Aged About 19 Years Occupation
Labour R/o Village Kekrabhata P.S. Dabhara
3. Radheshyam Chandra S/o Lakhanlal Chandra Aged About 25 Years Occ.
Agriculturist R/o Village Kansha P.S. Kharsia
4. Amrit Lal Satnami S/o Sudhram Satnami Aged About 19 Years
Occupation Agriculture/labour R/o Village Badhanpali.
5. Nazirkhan S/o Asarkhan Musalman Aged About 19 Years Occupation
Agriculture/ Labour R/o Village Ucchabhinda, Dabhara.
6. Joshikram Chouhan S/o Shobharam Chouhan Aged About 30 Years Occ.
Labour R/o Village Kekrabhata Dabhara.
7. Subbadas Mahant S/o Teejdas Mahant Aged About 21 Years Occ. Labour
R/o Village Ucchabhinda, P.S. Dabhara.
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.02
12:47:37
+0530
2
8. Shivlal @ Sanju Chouhan S/o Dayalu Chouhan Aged About 19 Years
Occupation -Labour R/o Village Kekrabhata P.S. Dabhara.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG along with
Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV JUDGEMENT
1. This criminal appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
order dated 21.07.2005 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2005, whereby the application filed by
the appellant/complainant under Section 452 of CrPC arising out of the
judgment dated 14.06.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 141/2004 has
been rejected in which all the accused have been acquitted of the charges
by the trial Court. During pendency of the appeal, complainant Buddha
Prakash Soni expired, therefore, his legal representatives are substituted in
his place as appellants.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, a Criminal Case No. 141 of 2004 was
initiated against the accused/respondents for commission of offence under
Sections 395 and 412 of IPC on the complaint of the complainant alleging
that on 15.08.2003 at about 7.00 PM in the evening, when he was returning
to village from Bhatgaon market with his son Kamal Soni on the motorcycle
and they reached near Bodri road then the accused/respondents who were
seven in number committed robbery of 15 kg silver, 5 tola gold and cash Rs.
4000/- total worth of Rs. 1 lakh from his possession.
3
3. During investigation, memorandum statements of the accused/ respondents
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded and on the
memorandum statement of the accused silver and gold ornaments were
recovered from their possession as per property seizure which were
exhibited as Ex.P-20, Ex.P-27, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24 and Ex.P-18,
Ex.P 19. The complainant identified the article under (Ex.P-8) on
21.07.2004. Jeweller Rajesh Kumar Soni has identified the silver and gold
articles under (Ex.P-21) and issued certificate of 13th articles (Ex.P-21).
According to which, total weight of articles was 1380 gram worth of Rs.
11,000/-.
4. The details of property seized from each of the accused as per property
seizure memos are given in the tabulate form as under:-
Sr. Statements of Accused Property seized
No under Section 27 of the
. Evidence Act.
1. Ganeshram Kewat 1- ,d tksM+h dh iSj iV~Vh >kyj ?kqa?k: okyh isp yxk ekdkZ
[kq'kcw otu 120 xzke dh 1200 :
2- ,d tksM+h pkanh dh dh iSj iV~Vh ?kqa?k: okyh otu 45 xzke
dh 450 :
3- 3 ux fcfN;k pkanh dh yky jax dh ehuk yxk gjk xqykch
jax dh cwan okyh ehuk yxk otu 12 xzke dh 120 :
4- ,d pkanh dh vaxwBh yky jax dh ux yxk gqvk A otu rhu
xzke dh 30 :
2. Radheshyam Chandra 1- ,d tksM+h ?kq?kjh okyh ik;y iqjkuk pkanh dk otu 140
xzzkke djhc
2- ,d tksM+h iSj iV~Vh isp okyh iqjkuk pkanh dk otu 70 xzzkke
djhc
3- ,d tksM+h iSj iV~Vh pkanh dk iqjkuk ehuk yxk otu 50 xzzkke
djhc
4- ,d tksM+h iSj iV~Vh ehuk yxk iryk lkbt pkanh dk iqjkuk
otu 24 xzzkke djhc
45- ,d tksM+h iSj iV~Vh ehuk yxk uax yxk pkanh dk iqjkuk
out djhc 30 xzzkke
6- 15 ux pkanh dk iSj iV~Vh vyx&vyx tksM+h dk lkbt
fMtkbu vyx 2 gSA ftles a 3 ux es a ehuk yxk ,d ux esa
fVdyh>wy 2 ux isp okyh 9 ux dM+k okyh gSA otuh djhcu
380 xzke
7- ,d ux pSu okyh iSj iV~Vh VqVk gqvk pkanh dk otu 10
xzke
8- ,d pkanh dk xyk dk cuk;k FkDdk yksjh pkSdj otuh 700
xzke djhc dherh 7000 : lkbt 11 x 2
3. Amrit Lal Satnami 1- 2 ux pkanh dh pwM+h fMtkbunkj otuh 35 xzke dh 350 :
2- 3 ux iSj esa igus okys pkanh dh fcfN;k yky gjk xqykch jax
dh ehuk yxk gqvk ,d lkFk pSu esa Qals gq, otu 12 xzke dh
120 :
3- ,d pkanh dh vaxqBh vaxzsth ds Vh fy[kk gqvk tehu jax dkys
jax fMtkbunkj otu 3 xzke 30 :
4. Nazirkhan 1- ,d IykfLVd dh >ksyk ¼Ukk;yksu½ ftles lQsn gRFkk uhyk
jax dh /kkjh cuk gS idM+us dh LFkku QVk gqvk gSA
2- IykfLVd >ksyk ds vanj ,d lQsn IykfLVd fMCck esa j[kk
gqvk pkanh ljh[ks /kkrw ls cuh tsoj Hkjh gSA
3- ,d tksM+h pkanh ds ik;tsc otuh djhcu 320 xzke gSA 5-5]
tSls fMtkbZu cuk gS ?kqa?k: yxk gSA
4- ,d tksM+h pkanh dk yPNk otuh djhcu 3-40 xzke ftldh
chp esa bZV Nki fMtkbZu cuk gS 3 ijr gSA
5- ,d pkanh dk gkQ dj/ku otuh djhcu 125 xzke ftles
yky ,oa gjs jax dh ehuk yxk gqvk gSA
6- 8 ux pkanh dk ik;y ,d ux ftldh tksM+ es RJ fy[kk gS
xksy fMtkbZu cuk gqvk gS ,d ux ik;y ‘kjn 100 fy[kk
gS ,d tksMh flxy yjhokyk ftles vxzoky fy[kk gqvk ,d
tksM+h ik;y ftlesa dSyk’k fy[kk gS ,d tksM+h ik;y ftles RP
ekdZ 100 vxzoky fy[kk gqvk yky gjk ehuk yxk gSA
7- nks ux paknh dh pSu ftlesa S,S,S fMtkbu cuh gS ,d
eksVh ,d iryh gSA otuh djhcu 50 xzke gSA
8- rhu ux pkanh dh fcfN;k ftles ,d esa xqykch jax dk ux
yxk ,d esa gjs xqykch ehuk yxk ftles R.P.J. ekdZ ,d
5fcfN;k bZV Nki otuh tweyk djhc 10 xzke gSA
9- ,d pkanh dh rkj esa dkys jax dh fizLVy eksrh dh ekyk
otuh djhcu 20 xzke
10- ,d pkanh dk xkSByk nkuk otuh 1 xzke gksxkA
11- ,d pkanh dh ik;y otuh ½ xzke gSA
12- ik;y dh pkanh dh ?kaq?k: otuh djhcu ½ xzke gSA
13- nks ux lksus dh uFkuh ftles nksuks esa yky jax dk uax yxk
gqvk gS otuh djhcu 1 xzke gSA
14- nks lksus dh ukd dh QqYyh Qsalh fMtkbu dh otuh ½ xzke
gSA
15- ,d lksus dh NksVh ukd dh QqYyh ftlesa lQsn jax
vesfjdu Mk;eaM ux yxk gqvk gS otuh djhcu ½ xzke gSA
pkanh dh tsoj dh tqeyk otuh 1100 xzke gSA
5. Joshikram 1- ,d ckDlj eksVj lk;dy K ctkt dIiuh dh ftldk
esg:u dyj gS jftLVªs’ku u0 CG13-1189 gS psfll u0 DFFBGH-
36422 ,oa batu u0 DFF DGH-67029 gSA
2- ,d IykfLVd dh NksVh fMCck ftles pkanh lfj[ks /kkrw ds
tsoj Hkjh gS tksfld ds isaV dh nk;s tsc essa ls fudkydj nsus
ijA tsoj fuEukuqlkj gSA
3- ,d tksM+h pkanh dh ik;y otu djhcu 80 xzke ftles
RK/SPL fy[kk gqvk gS ,d ik;y esa ydM+h yxh gSA
4- ,d pkanh dk ik;y otuh djhcu 50 xzke RJ 1 fy[kk gqvk
dyj okyh gSA
5- ,d ux pkanh dk ik;y otuh djhcu 20 xzke ftles ‘kjn
100 fy[kk gqvk dyj okyh gSA
6- ,d pkanh dh exaylw= otuh djhcu 50 xzke ftles iku
Nki dk ykWdsV ehuk ?kqa?k: yxk gqvk xqykch gjk yky jax dh
gS A
7- ,d pkanh dh pSu otuh 10 xzke ftles tksM+ ij sAA fy[kk
gSA
8- nks ux pkch dM+k otuh 25 xzke ehuk yxk gSA
9- rhu tksM+k cPpksa dk pqM+k otuh 12 xzke gSA
10- ,d xksByj pkanh dk otuh 1 xzke gksxkA
11- pkj ux pkanh dk pUnzek otuh 4 xzke gSA
12- rhu vaxwBh ftlesa xqykch ux yxh gS otuh 10 xzke ¼pkanh
dh½ gSA
6
13- rhu iq:”k vaxwBh pkanh dh otuh tqeyk 9 xzke nks esa ux gS
,d pkSdksj gSA
14- nks ux ysfMl vaxwBh otuh djhcu 10 xzke ftles ,d esa
yky jax dk ux yxk ,d lknk gSA
15- ,d ux dku dk >qedk otuh djhcu 3 xzke ftlesa pSu
yxh gqbZ gSA
16- ,d fcfN;k pkanh dh bZV Nki gS otuh 2 xzke gSA
17- ,d pkanh dh ykWdsV 1 xzke ftles yky] gjk] uhyk ehuk
yxk gqvk gSA
18- ,d dku dk VkIl ½ xzke flEiy xksykdkj gSA
6. Subbadas Mahant 1- rhu ux pkanh dk iSj iV~Vh ftles ,d tksM+h 2 ux
lknk ,oa 1 ux
?kqa?k: okyh isp yxk GS fy[kk otu 145 xzke dh 1450 :A
2- 2 ux pkanh dk vaxwBh gjk yky jax dk ehuk yxk gqvk A
fcfN;k fMtkbu dk otu 3 ½ xzke dh 30
3- ,d ux pkanh dk fcfN;k yky xqykch gjs jax dk ehuk yxk
Qqy fMtkbu dk otu 2 xzke dh 20
4- ,d yksgs dk pkdw uqdhyk /kkjnkj
7. Shivlal @ Runjhu 1- ,d es a tqM+s 3 ux iSj es a iguus dk fcfN;k pkanh dk ehuk
yxs otu 7 xzke dh 70 :
2- 2 ux pkanh dh vaxwBh ux yxk ,d yEck ux ,d xksy ux
yxk gS otu 4 xzke dh 40 :
3- 2 ux pkanh ds pkch Nyyk ?kqa?k: okyh ehuk yxk out 28
xzke dh 280 :
5. During trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 457 CrPC for
handing over seized property on supurdnama before learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Raigarh claiming ownership on the count that the applicant is
goldsmith and the property seized by the Police from the accused is
deteriorating, therefore, it may be handed over to him. One of the accused
namely Radhey Shyam Chandra who was charged for committing robbery
has filed objection contending that he has no objection to hand over the
7property which has been seized on the memorandum statement of Nasir
Khan dated 19.06.2004 from Radhey Shyam Chandra as well as all the
property seized from him except from No. 1 to 8 as the said property
belonged to accused Radhey Shyam Chandra. It has also been contended
that the seized property are disputed, therefore, its identification is
necessary and has prayed for rejection of the application so far as the
property seized from accused Radhey Shayam Chandra. Learned CJM has
rejected the same vide order dated 25.09.2024.
6. The appellant after judgment of the criminal trial has moved an application
for handing over the property on supurdnama before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge under Section 452 CrPC which was registered as
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 63 of 2005. Learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 21.07.2005 has rejected on the
count that earlier the trial Court has rejected the application under Section
457 CrPC and the learned Sessions Court while disposing of the criminal
trial No. 141 of 2004 has not given any decision with regard to disposal of
the property but in para-60 of its judgment has granted liberty to the
appellant to take recourse of civil suit and accordingly it has rejected the
application filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved with this order, the
appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the applications under
Section 452 and 457 CrPC are independent proceedings and even if their
application under Section 451 CrPC has been rejected by the trial Court it
does not affect their right as proceeding under Section 451 CrPC is during
custody and disposal of the property pending the trial and its intermediate
8order whereas Section 452 CrPC is final order which has been passed for
disposal of the property after conclusion of trial, as such there is no rider to
decide the case by the Session Court under Section 457 CrpC. He would
further submit that order under Section 451 Crpc is intermediate order. He
would further submit that even other wise the order under Section 452 Crpc
is interlocutory order, therefore, it merges with the final order. To
substantiate this submission, he has referred to the judgments in the case
of Surjeet Kumar Jain vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported 2021 SCC
Online Chh 2464, judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Dheerendra Dwivedi @ Dheeru vs. State of MP in Criminal revision No.
2078 of 2020 decided on 17.12.2020 and also referred the judgment of
High Court of Delhi in the case of Sandeep Singh vs. State of NCT of
Delhi and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 1466.
8. He would further submit that one of the accused has not claimed the entire
property, therefore, finding recorded by the trial Court to go for civil
proceedings is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He would further submit
that confessional part of the accused lead to discovery used for purpose of
disposal of the property and the stolen property recovered at the instance of
the accused is disclaimed by him and the accused were given benefit of
doubt, as such property should be returned to the owner. To substantiate
this submission he has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp SCC
541(2), Prakash Vernekar vs. State of Goa and Another reproted 2007
SCC Online Bom 1244, Vishnu Kumar Agarawal vs. State of UP
reported 2022 SCC Online All 1766, Prakash Chandra Jain vs. Jagdish
9and another reported 1957 SCC Online MP 118, Satish Ramakant Naik
vs. State of Goa through Public Prosecutor and another reported 2019
SCC Online Bom 4887 and would pray for allowing the appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Mr. Arun Shukla would submit that
the impugned passed by the trial Court is legal, justified and the respondent
No. 2 is claiming right over the seized property. He would further submit that
the appellant has not submitted any bills or document of purchase to
demonstrate that he is the ownership of the property and in absence of any
documentary evidence on record it cannot be said that the
complainant/appellant is the owner of the property, as such he is not entitled
to get possession of the property after conclusion of the trial, therefore
application under Section 452 of CrPC has rightly been rejected by the trial
Court. He would further submit that entitlement of the appellant itself is
doubtful unless and until absolute ownership of the seized material is prima-
facie proved, as such he is not entitled to take possession on the looted
property and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supporting the judgment of
the trial Court would submit that learned trial Court declined possession of
the seized property which is legal, justified and which does not warrant
interference by this Court. He would further submit that even interlocutory
order passed by the trial Court under Section 451 CrPC before the
Magistrate has not been challenged, as such it has attained finality and
even if interlocutory order is not binding proceeding under Section 452 Crpc
but it has some legal value which cannot lose sight of the fact by ignoring
the same unless cogent material is brought by the appellant. In the present
10
case, the appellant has not produced any bill, voucher to demonstrate that
he has purchased the silver and gold items from which he has made
ornaments. He would further submit that the complainant/appellant has
stated that 5 KG gold and 15 tolas silver have been looted by the accused
whereas only 1100 gram ornaments were seized as per seizure memo, as
such there is large discrepancy in the details of the seized property and the
contains made in the FIR, therefore, there is serious doubt over the
correctness and genuineness of the claim and would pray for dismissal of
the appeal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
12. From the submission made by the counsel for the parties, the point merged
for determination by this Court is whether the order passed by the Sessions
Court declining claim of the appellant under Section 452 CrPC and directing
the appellant to take recourse of civil law is legal, justified or not ?
13. For better understanding the point of determination, it is expedient for this
Court to extract Sections 451 and 452 CrPC.
Section 451 CrPC – Order for custody and disposal of property
pending trial in certain cases:-When any property is produced before
any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such
order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending
the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to
speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the
Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order
it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, “property” includes –
(a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the
Court or which is in its custody.
(b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been
committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of
any offence.
Section 452 CrPC Order for disposal of property at conclusion of
trial.
(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the
Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by
11destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be
entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or
document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any
offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for
the commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of
any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession
thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a
bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court,
engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made
under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under
sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner
provided in Sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and
natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of
sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be
carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such
appeal has been disposed of.
(5) In this section, the term “property” includes, in the case of property
regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only
such property as has been originally in the possession or under the
control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same
may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by
such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.
14. From the above stated provisions of CrPC, it is quite vivid that proceeding
under Section 451 and 452 works in different sphere as Section 451 CrPC
operates for custody and disposal of the property pending trial in certain
cases whereas Section 452 CrPC operate for disposal of the property at
conclusion of the trial. It is also clear that at the time of considering the
application under Section 451 CrPC, the documents relating to seizure are
not available as at these documents get approved after completion of trial
by exhibiting the same in the course of proceeding or by examining the
witnesses of the seizure memo, as such while dealing with the application
during the trial the person who intends to claim the property has to prove his
claim by strong and cogent evidence whereas after trial the complainant
examined, the seizure memo are duly proved by examining the witnesses
12
and the accused has also opportunity to explain the circumstances of
availability of the property on his memorandum statement recorded under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act then only entitlement of the person is
determined, therefore, rejection of the application under Section 451 CrPC
is not having any adverse affect while deciding the application under
Section 452 CrPC after completion of the trial. Even otherwise, order
passed under Section 451 CrPC is interlocutory order and in view of well
settled legal position of law that interlocutory order does not culminate right
of any party, as such the trial court has committed illegality while taking into
consideration the order passed under Section 451 CrPC by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class while dismissing the application under Section 452
CPC.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande
and others vs. Uttam and another reported 1999(3) SCC 134 has held as
under:-
6. Discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should,
therefore, be exercised within the four corners of Section 397,
whenever there has been miscarriage of justice in whatever
manner. Under sub-section (2) of Section 397, there is a
prohibition to exercise revisional jurisdiction against any
interlocutory order so that inquiry or trial may proceed without
any delay. But the expression “interlocutory order” has not been
defined in the Code. In Amar Nath & Ors. vs. State of Haryana
1978(1) SCR 222, this Court has held that the expression
“interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) has been used in a
restricted sense and not in a broad or artistic sense and merely
denotes orders of purely interim or temporary nature which do
not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties
and any order which substantially affects the right of the parties
cannot be said to be an “interlocutory order”.
16. From perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Session Judge
while rejecting the application has not taken into consideration the seizure
13
memos Ex.P-20, ExP-27, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24, Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19
which were the seizure memo prepared on the memorandum statement
recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the accused namely
Ghanshyam Kenwat, Radhey Shyam Chandra, Amrit Lal Satnami, Nazir
Khan, Joshikram, Subhas Mahant, Shiv Lal @ Runjhu as detailed above.
Even accused including Radhey Shyam in their statement recorded under
Section 313 CrPC have not stated anything regarding ownership of the
property seized as well as seizure of the property from them.
17. Though it is well settled legal position that as per Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, it is quite vivid, that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence,
in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has recently
come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Neelu @ Nilesh Kosti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2026
INSC 173 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph
20,21,22 and 23 as under:-
20, It is trite that Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act stipulate
that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible.
However, Section 27 is an exception to Section 25 and 26 and
serves as a proviso to both these sections. Section 27 of the
Evidence Act reads as follows:
“27. How much of information received from accused may be
proved.– Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered inconsequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.” The scope and ambit of Section
1427 have been examined by this Court in Delhi Administration
vs. Bal Krishan and Others reported in 1972 (4) SCC 659.
21) Elucidating on what constitutes “discovery of fact” under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, this Court in Udai Bhan vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported 1962 SCC Online SC 229 observed
as follows :
“11. Thus it appears that Section 27 does not nullify the ban
imposed by Section 26 in regard to confessions made by
persons in police custody but because there is the added
guarantee of truthfulness from the fact discovered the
statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given
in evidence but only that portion which distinctly relates to
the discovery of the fact. A discovery of a fact includes the
object found, the place from which it is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to its existence. ….”
(Emphasis supplied).
22) The aforesaid legal position was comprehensively reiterated
and elaborate d upon by this Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha and
Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (8) SCC 45,
wherein the question of whether evidence relating to recovery is
sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was examined at length.
This Court held that for evidence under Section 27 to be
admissible, the information must emanate from an accused who
is in police custody. The Court elucidated that the basic idea
embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events when a fact is discovered on the strength of
information obtained from a prisoner, such discovery serves as
a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information supplied. The
Court further observed that whether the information is
confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, if it results in the
discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information. Significantly,
it was held that the mere recovery of an object does not
constitute the discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Relying
on the Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kottayya and Others
vs. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, the Court held that the “fact
discovered” embraces not merely the object recovered, but the
place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of
the accused as to its existence, and that the information given
must relate distinctly to that effect.
23) When the present case is examined in the light of the
aforesaid principles, it is evident that the recovery of the dead
body satisfies all the essential requirements of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. Pursuant to the memorandum statement
recorded, while the appellant was in Police custody, the dead
body of Archana @ Pinki was discovered from a well near
Tasaali Dhaba, Indore Bypass Road. The body was found
stuffed in a sack, as deposed by the panch witnesses who were
15
present at the time of recovery. The recovery panchnama
establishes that the recovery was made at the precise location
disclosed by the appellant. As laid down in Udai Bhan 4 (2002) 8
SCC 45 5 AIR 1947 PC 67: 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 (supra),
the discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from
which it is produced, and the knowledge of the accused as to its
existence. In the present case, the information given by the
appellant while in Police custody distinctly relates to the fact
discovered, namely, recovery of the dead body of the deceased
concealed in a sack and thrown in a specific well. This
constitutes a “distinct fact” as contemplated under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act, as the recovery of the body from that precise
location could only have been made on the basis of information
furnished by someone who had personal knowledge of its
disposal. The recovery embodies the “doctrine of confirmation
by subsequent events” as explained in Bodhraj (supra)–the
actual discovery of the body from the exact location disclosed by
the appellant is a guarantee that the information supplied by him
is true. The fact discovered embraces the place from where the
object was recovered (the well near Tasaali Dhaba) and the
knowledge of the appellant as to its existence at that location.
This information is not within public domain or capable of
discovery through routine investigation. These circumstances
constitute a formidable link in the chain pointing towards the
culpability of the appellant.
18. Considering the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case, the
information given by the accused in the police custody regarding silver and
gold ornaments distinctly related to the fact discovered under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act as the recovery of gold and silver ornaments from the
precise location could only have been made on the basis of information
furnished by someone who had personal knowledge about it. Thus it cannot
be held that the property was seized from the accused persons as the
memorandum statement of the accused for proceeding under Section 452
CrPC is piece of evidence for the purpose of considering and deciding who
is best person entitle to possession of the property. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
1990 supp SCC 541 has held that leading to the discovery by the accused
16
can be made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under
Section 452 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are
satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge of
the Rajasthan High Court for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs
20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the State is wholly
unwarranted. It is now accepted principle that the confessional
part of the statement made by the accused leading to discovery
within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be
made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under
Section 452 of the Code. There is a long line of decisions laying
down the principle and we would refer to only a few of them.
3. In Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court laid down that the statement made to
the police by the accused persons as to the ownership of property
which was the subject matter of the proceedings against them
although inadmissible as evidence against them at the trial for the
offence with which they were charged, were admissible as
evidence with regard to the ownership of the property in an
enquiry held by the Criminal Procedure Code. The same view
was reiterated in Pohlu v. Emperor where it was pointed out that
though there is a bar in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, or in
Section 162 CrPC for being made use of as evidence against the
accused, this statement could be made use of in an enquiry under
Section 517 CrPC when determining the question of return of
property. These two decisions have been followed by the
Rajasthan High Court in Dhanraj Baldeokishan v. State and the
Mysore High Court in Veerabhadrappa v. Govinda. In the present
case, the amount in question was seized from the accused in
pursuance of statements made by them under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. The High Court as well as the courts below have
found the property to be the subject of theft and the acquittal of
the accused is upon benefit of doubt. The accused persons
disclaimed the stolen property and there is no reason why the
same should not be returned to the owner i.e. the complainant to
whom it belongs.
19. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case Kamarlal and another vs. State of
M.P. and another reported in 1992 SCC Online M.P. 246 has held as under:-
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-
accused has placed reliance on a decision of this court of
Babulal v. State of M.P (1989 C.Cr.J 11) wherein it has been
observed that the power of the criminal court under S. 452,
Cr.P.C. to make an order for the disposal of the property at the
17
conclusion of the trial is summary in nature and on order so
made does not adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties and
the persons aggrieved are free to file a civil suit for enforcement
off their rights in the property and that the provisions under the
law do not bar statement of the accused made to the police
officer during investigation being used to determine the person to
whom custody of the property could be delivered.
(10.) In the instant case, the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioners-Accused is that that the property in dispute
belongs to the Accused persons and the police seized the
property from the Accused persons and implanted the same for
the purpose of seizure in pursuance of memorandum under S.
27 of the Evidence Act. This argument in my opinion, has no legs
to stand. If the police had seized the property belonging to the
Accused persons from them, it was but natural that they would
have made complaint of such highhandedness on the part of
police at some forum. It was also expected in that circumstances
that the Accused persons would, from the very outset make a
claim to the property as belonging to them but they advisedly
kept silent for some time even after the complainant made an
application under S. 452 of the Cr. P.C. The Accused persons
also denied any seizure of the property from them in the
examination of the Accused. In these circumstances, no claim
has been established of the Accused over the property which
was the subject matter of the alleged offence of theft. In fact, the
Accused persons have been acquitted because they were not
found to be in possession of the property which was allegedly
seized from them. Moreover, as observed in the case of Babulal
(supra) the disposal of property u/S. 452, Cr. P.C. is summary in
nature and subject to proper adjudication of civil rights of the
parties in a civil suit by the person aggrieved. In view of the
discussions aforesaid, I do not find any force in this revision,
which is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed.
20. Similar views have also been taken by the High Court of Kerla in the case of
Thampi Chettiar Arjunan Chettiar vs. State and another reported in 1995
Criminal Law General 1185, High Court of Bombay in the case reported
in 2007 SCC Online Bombay 1214 and Allahabad High Court also in the
case of Vishnu Kumar Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2022 SCC Online All 1766.
21. In view of above stated facts and law on the subject, I am of the view that the
learned Sessions Court has committed illegality in passing the order dated
18
21.07.2005 in Misc. Case No. 63 of 2005 rejecting the application for
supurdnama under Section 452 CrPC after completion of trial and acquittal of
accused. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.07.2005 is set aside
and the application filed by the appellant under Section 452 CrPC is allowed
and the Sessions Court is directed to hand over the property as detailed in
supurdnama Ex.P-20, ExP-27, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-23, Ex.P-24, Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-
19 to the legal heirs of the appellant subject to the satisfaction of the Sessions
Court, Raigarh by imposing usual conditions upon the owner of the property at
the time of handing over to them.
22. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh