Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 271 (KAR)

PRABHAKAR VAMAN PISHE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-03-22

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the unfortunate victim of the crimes punishable under Ss. 457 and 380, I. P. C. M. Os. 1 to 16 which are a valuable gold and silver jewellery along with other valuable articles were subject of theft. About seven accused were named as offenders in the crime. In the instant case, four accused faced trial and they are acquitted. Against the remaining accused, the case was split up. C. C. No. 219/99 in which the impugned order is passed is the case relating to a trial against accused No. 4 in the original case, who was absconding. Later on, arrested and trial is held. The case against accused Nos. 5 and 6 is split up, who are shown as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the present case all the accused, who have faced the trial are acquitted. ( 2 ) THE trial Court in the final order made a conditional order of the delivery of the property to the interim custody of the petitioner imposing the condition that the petitioner shall not alter the pattern, design and complexion of the property and to maintain the status quo of the property until the trial against the other absconding accused is concluded. Being aggrieved by the conditions, the present petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the S. P. P. The petitioner, who is already a victim of crime appears to have smitten by the procedures of law and the conditions imposed by the trial Court virtually deprives the lawful exercise of rightful ownership over the property. The philosophy and the ideals of law regarding fair trial given to the accused is commandable but nonetheless law should not bear a step-motherly attitude towards the victims of crime. The incriminating material objects seized during the course of investigation necessarily have to be produced during trial and they become a necessary corroborative evidence to prove the guilt. This part of the procedure is an essential facet of fair trial. Therefore, keeping intact the incriminating material and preserving the same in the custody of the Court or under the control of the Court until the trial is concluded is essentially a rule of prudence. This procedure could be followed when all things remain normal. This part of the procedure is an essential facet of fair trial. Therefore, keeping intact the incriminating material and preserving the same in the custody of the Court or under the control of the Court until the trial is concluded is essentially a rule of prudence. This procedure could be followed when all things remain normal. However, when the accused remains absconding, there is no prospect of immediate trial being held and there being no rival claim over the property, the facts and material established in the case supports the claim of ownership of the victim, the property necessarily has to be returned to the victim or the complainant. However, the imposition of the conditions which are repugnant to the normal concept of ownership rights should be avoided. It is understandable to impose the conditions to maintain status quo when there is reasonable prospect of disposal of the case finally within a reasonable time frame. However, when it becomes unpredictable and indefinite about the disposal of the case at the trial stage, it would not be fair and proper in law to impose onerous conditions which in effect prevent the exercise of lawful ownership rights over the property by the proven owner. When the accused deliberately absconds and keeps himself away from the process of law, over anxiety on the part of law keeping in view the interests of only the defaulting accused and disregarding the interests of victims of crime would breed only a lopsided approach, devoid of equity and fairness. ( 4 ) THAT apart, the scientific technology in photography has achieved tremendous progress. Hardly there is any object which can miss the eye of a camera. The present photographic techniques are quite substantially developed. The photo of any object can be taken which could reflect the designs, pattern, character and complexion of the property. The jewellery in this case, of course, could be a subject-matter of photography and by proper photographs from different dimensions, the pattern, character, the facet and the type of the jewellery can be very well taken. The said photographs can be used as a secondary evidence. Therefore, any of the properties which could be a successful subject matter of photography, the photos of which be taken and to be made a part of the record. Even at the time when interim custody is granted. The said photographs can be used as a secondary evidence. Therefore, any of the properties which could be a successful subject matter of photography, the photos of which be taken and to be made a part of the record. Even at the time when interim custody is granted. When the accused is absconding, it is indefinite about the probable time frame in which the case could be concluded. The properties be given to the victim or the complainant sans any onerous condition of maintaining status quo more- so when the investigating material or the evidence adduced as the case may be supports the claim of the victim. However, to ensure the proper accountability of the value of the property, necessary indemnity bonds could be taken. Even if the property is not produced, the secondary evidence can be used in evidence and ultimately at the conclusion of trial if it is found that the victim or the complainant is not entitled to possession and that the accused is entitled to possession, the complainant may be directed to pay the value of the property. In order to ensure the assessment of the proper value, due care should be taken by the trial Courts in getting the value of the property properly assessed and necessary indemnity bonds to be taken from the victim or complainant if necessary with sureties for recovery of the value. In the result, the petition is allowed. The condition regarding maintaining the status quo by the trial Court is hereby relaxed. However, the trial Court is directed to get the necessary photographs of the properties M. Os. 1 to 16 taken and its value assessed. To the extent of the value, necessary indemnity bonds be taken from the petitioner with one surety and the photographs so taken should be kept in file and the same to be used as secondary evidence in the course of trial when the absconding accused are arrested and face trial. The Registry is directed to circulate the copy of the order to all the subordinate Courts and also to place this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordship's consideration to bring about necessary amendments to criminal Rules of practice in this regard. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .