Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 564 (MAD)

Veerappan v. Kuppayee

2019-03-01

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. 1. The appellants in these two appeals are the convicted accused in S.C. No. 181 of 2008 dated 29.10.2012 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 30.07.2000 at about 08.45 p.m., Karnataka Cine Artist Rajkumar was abducted from his Farm House by one Veerappan and his associates. He was confined in a secrete place at Sathyamangalam Forest Area. The said Rajkumar was put under threat and fear of death, if the Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of Karnataka failed to accede to their demands. In this connection, Thalavadi Police has registered First Information Report in Crime No. 90 of 2000 and taken it for investigation. Meanwhile, Rs. 15 crores was transferred from the side of representative of the captive to the representative of the captor on 3 different dates. Thereafter, Rajkumar was released on 14.11.2011. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Rs. 15 crores paid from the side of the captive on 16.08.2000, 20.09.2000 and 13.11.2000 were received by the accused persons for screening the evidence and to supply essentials to Veerappan and his associates. Alleging that pursuant to the conspiracy, these 26 accused persons have received the money from Veerappan and converted in to assets in their names either by deposit in the bank or by purchase of motor vehicles, jewels or hiding the cash in secluded place. 4. On 11.11.2001 Kolathur Police of Salem District got secret information that the money received as ransom during the abduction of Rajkumar has been concealed in the residence of Ayyadurai. Therefore, First Information Report was registered and permission of the Judicial Magistrate was obtained to conduct search of the residence Ayyadurai and Madhaiyan. During the course of the said search, the respondent has recovered a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- and 11-¾ sovereign gold jewels from the residence of Ayyadurai; and a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- and four deposit receipts in the names of Amara, Madhaiyan, Muthukumar and Madesh. Further, investigation has led to involvement of the other accused in this case. Later, in the course of investigation, statement of Chandrasekar @ Chinnakannu @ Sekar and Neruppur Mani was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-41). Based on the confession statement given by A4, a sum of Rs. Further, investigation has led to involvement of the other accused in this case. Later, in the course of investigation, statement of Chandrasekar @ Chinnakannu @ Sekar and Neruppur Mani was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-41). Based on the confession statement given by A4, a sum of Rs. 2,39,500/- (M.O. 5) was recovered from Thambi Thambi; a sum of Rs. 3,23,000/- (M.O. 12) was recovered from A12, Rs. 3,42,000/- (M.O. 16) and Rs. 4,00,000/-(M.O. 17) from Munusamy. 5. A1 to A26 were charged for the following offences: (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced.) 6. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 63 witnesses. 65 Exhibits and 19 Material Objects were marked. The trial Court, out of eight charges framed, found the appellants herein [A1 to A4, A6, A10 to A12, A15, A17, A24 to A26] guilty of charge for the offence under Section 412 of IPC and acquitted them from the rest of the charges, except the appellants, the other accused [A5, A7 to A9, A13, A15, A16, A18 to A23] were acquitted from all the charges for want of evidence. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in both appeals, who are A1 to A4, A6, A10 to A12, A15, A17, A24 to A26 would contend that these appellants along with the other acquitted accused persons were primarily charged for conspiracy to commit the offence under Sections 216 and 412 of IPC. The trial Court has held that the charge of conspiracy not proved. While so, there must be some material to prove that each accused were involved in the offence under Section 412 of IPC, Section 412 IPC is based on three ingredients namely: (i) reception of stolen property and its possession; (ii) reason to believe the same was the proceeds of dacoity; and (iii) received it dishonestly. 8. As far as this case is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that the money alleged to have been recovered from the accused persons were the proceeds of dacoity. The accused persons had reason to believe that the same is proceeds of dacoity and they receive it with dishonest intention. The learned counsel, in short, would submit that the main case, where the alleged demand of ransom by Veerappan by abducting Rajkumar was pending, the trial of this case got completed. The accused persons had reason to believe that the same is proceeds of dacoity and they receive it with dishonest intention. The learned counsel, in short, would submit that the main case, where the alleged demand of ransom by Veerappan by abducting Rajkumar was pending, the trial of this case got completed. Later, the predator offence it ended in acquittal. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has not preferred any appeal. So, the charge that the money recovered from the accused persons alleging it as proceeds of that crime itself does not sustain. Furthermore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the money recovered not co-related to the demand of ransom and the receipt of ransom. None of the prosecution witness has spoken about the payment of ransom or distribution of it to the persons accused in this trial. Without any proof that the money was paid by the representative of the captive to the representative of the captor, the prosecution cannot sustain further alleging that the money or property recovered from the accused persons is stolen property or the proceeds of dacoity. Pointing out that the person who is alleged to have transferred the money from the captor has not been examined by the prosecution. The witnesses for the recovery of material objects have turned hostile, except the interested witnesses like Village Administrative Officer and the Investigation Officer. There is no evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution that M.O. 1 to M.O. 19 were recovered from the possession of the accused persons or based on the information given by the accused persons. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would rely upon the following judgments to substantiate his argument that when the person is prosecuted under Section 412 of IPC, the recovery of the material objects must be proximate to the crime. The prosecution should first prove the crime of dacoity or theft. The possession of the suspected property ought to have been dishonestly received kept by the person with knowledge that it is the proceeds of dacoity. When none of the above factors are satisfied in the above case, the conviction is erroneous. 10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that PW-1 to PW-3 were the persons who were abducted by Veerappan along with Rajkumar. When none of the above factors are satisfied in the above case, the conviction is erroneous. 10. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that PW-1 to PW-3 were the persons who were abducted by Veerappan along with Rajkumar. They have spoken about the demand of ransom and payment of ransom. The role of one Gopal, who stood as Mediator for transfer of money has been spoken by these witnesses. After the transfer of the money, Rajkumar was released by Veerappan during the month of November 2000. PW-23(Kuppusamy) the Bank Manager has deposed about the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by A2 during the relevant point of time. All the Village Administrative Officers, who were examined by the prosecution have spoken about the recovery of M.O. 4 from A1 under mahazar Ex. P61; recovery of M.O. 12 from A2 under mahazaar Ex. P17; and recovery of M.O. 5 from A4 under mahazar Ex. P41. The accused persons from whom huge cash was recovered were not able to explain the source of the money. Further, the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned village have also certified that these accused persons had no means to possess such a huge money. In the said circumstances, applying the presumption under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Provisions of Section 412 r/w 410 of IPC, the trial Court has rightly held them guilty. Therefore, the judgment of the Court below needs not interference. 11. Hear both sides. Considered the respective arguments in the light of the material documents available on records. 12. Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- 412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity:-Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, from whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen shall be punished with [imprisonment of life] or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also liable to fine." 13. To establish the guilt of a person under Section 412 of IPC, the prosecution first should prove the recovery from their possession. To establish the guilt of a person under Section 412 of IPC, the prosecution first should prove the recovery from their possession. In this case, though PW-23 says that A1 deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in their bank, there is no material documents to substantiate this. When the Village Administrative Officers deposed about the recovery of money during the search proceedings, their evidence is not corroborated by any other independent witnesses. All Village Administrative Officers have certified that the accused persons had no sufficient means. But in the cross examination, these witnesses not able to substantiate under what basis they have given such certificate. 14. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the alleged crime of receiving ransom and the alleged recovery is not within the reasonable time, but after lapse of several months. The link to the crime and the recovery of the money have not been established. More so, when the accused persons have disowned the money and the disputed the very recovery of material objects from their possession, the conviction merely based on the evidence of the Village Administrative Officers, is unsafe. Hence, they are bound to be acquitted extending the benefit of doubt. 15. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam dated 29.10.2012 in S.C. No. 181 of 2008 is set aside. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Bail bond if any executed by the appellants stands cancelled. The Material Objects 1 to 19 are directed to be confiscated to the State.