Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 96 (JK)

Raksha Devi v. UT of J. & K.

2023-03-10

M.A.CHOWDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Vide order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban (for short 'the Trial Court') rejected an application moved by the petitioner as one of the accused, for release of two cash certificates/FDRs amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- each standing in her name, seized by the investigating agency in a case titled 'State v. Kasturi Lal & Ors.', arising out of FIR No. 14/2016 under sections 302, 120-B, 201, 34 RPC of Police Station Dharamkund. 2. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition wherein it is being pleaded that the marriage between the petitioner and Late Jagdish Singh was solemnized on 02.12.2010, out of the said wedlock one son has been born on 30.04.2013 and they were having cordial relation. Unfortunately, her husband died on 16.04.2016 in an road accident, regarding which an FIR No. 14/2016 was registered at Police Station Dharamkund for the commission of offence punishable under sections 279, 304-A RPC. 3. It was alleged that with malafide intention, the petitioner, her parents, brother and another person have been involved in a false and frivolous case of alleged murder of her husband; that the police presented the challan before the Trial Court wherein 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 27 witnesses cited in the challan. 4. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was having two cash certificates/FDRs standing in her name with J&K Bank Global ACUSS Card having Account Nos. 0087050300654001 and 0087050300655284 amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac each. During investigation, the respondent has seized both the aforesaid two FDRs and the same have been made part of the challan file. Besides this, the petitioner was also having the J&K Bank Global ACUSS Card valid upto 12/19 bearing No. 5049730087100020854 in her name which too has been seized by the respondent, the seizure memo has been prepared which is also part of the challan file. It is prayed that the criminal revision petition be allowed and the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, be set aside. 5. It is prayed that the criminal revision petition be allowed and the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban, be set aside. 5. Pursuant to notice, respondent filed objections to the revision petition asserting therein that on 16.04.2016 an information was received through reliable sources that a vehicle bearing registration No. JK19/1652 driven by one Jagdish Singh S/O Suram Chand, in a rash and negligent manner from Kanga towards Dharamkund and at KM 14 the driver lost control over his vehicle, which rolled down the hill about 600-700 meters. On this, an FIR No. 14/2016 was registered at Police Station Dharamkund for the commission of offences punishable under sections 279, 304-A RPC and initial investigation was entrusted to ASI Vijay Singh, I.O. visited the spot, photographed the scene of crime with his own mobile, conducted thorough search of scene of crime, collected and seized blood stained seat covers, broken pieces of mirror glass as a piece of evidence for expert opinion. During search of the accidental vehicle, one identity card of one Kasturi Lal S/O Isher Dass R/O Kanga, RC of the said vehicle, D/L of petitioner Raksha Devi and D/L of deceased Jagdish were also seized. During further investigation, the statements of the relatives of deceased and other witnesses got recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C., thereafter the accused person Kasturi Lal S/O Isher Dass, Chamail Singh S/O Durga Dass, Raksha Devi W/O deceased, Kanta Devi W/O Chamail Singh and Akhilesh Singh S/O Chamail Singh, all R/O Kanga Tehsil and District Ramban were arrested and thoroughly interrogated. During interrogation, the accused persons confessed that they had killed the deceased, in the intervening night of 15/16th of April 2016, with an axe in the house of the petitioner. On their disclosure, weapon of offence and other physical evidence was collected from the actual scene of crime. During the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons killed her husband Jagdish Singh and the offences under sections 302, 120B, 201, 34 RPC were proved against the petitioner and other persons, the investigation of the case was completed and challan vide final report No. 17/2016 dated 17.07.2016 against the petitioner and other four persons, was produced in the court of law which is under trial. 6. 6. It is further asserted that the petitioner moved an application seeking release of cash certificates/FDRs which stand in her name, was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said certificates/FDRs are the important pieces of evidence and are required their identification during the course of trial of the case. 7. Heard and considered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at the Bar that petitioner has not committed any offence, she has been involved in a false and frivolous case of murder of her own husband. After the death of her husband, who was the only earning member of the family, the petitioner has become penniless and she is not in a position to contest the case any further. Admittedly, the aforesaid two cash certificates/FDRs which are in her name are owned by the petitioner, the same have been seized by the respondent during the search of the house of the petitioner and her husband, in these circumstances, there was no justification for rejecting the application for release of the said certificates/FDRs in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned, deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsels for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner with regard to release of cash certificates/FDRs in her favour on the ground that some of the important prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and the petitioner/accused is facing trial for the murder of her own husband along others and in case the cash certificates are released in her favour, the trial of the case shall be prejudiced. 10. The Trial Court had rejected the application moved by the petitioner herein seeking release of two cash certificates/FDRs for the reasons that the case property cannot be released in favour of the petitioner/accused at this stage or until the entire prosecution evidence is recorded. The Trial Court has not taken pain to satisfy itself as to why the certificates in the name of the petitioner even if she is an accused cannot be released in her favour. The reasons assigned that a number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, in the considered opinion of this court, should not disentitle the petitioner from seeking release of the property in her name. 11. The reasons assigned that a number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, in the considered opinion of this court, should not disentitle the petitioner from seeking release of the property in her name. 11. On perusal of the seizure memo, the FDRs sought to be released had been seized during investigation of the case besides certain other documents and articles. This is not a case where the petitioner as an accused has denied to the seizure of the property sought to be released, rather, she has claimed that the same was seized during investigation of the case. These FDRs are not stated to be an important piece of evidence, so as to prove the charge of murder or any other offence in the case. The Trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, has fallen in error to refuse the release of two cash certificates/FDRs which stood in the name of petitioner-Raksha Devi, who is an accused in the case. There shall be no harm in release of FDRs in favour of the petitioner as the same are subject to be re-validated or can also be encashed being her own property, to which no other person can have a better claim. 12. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The FDRs having account Nos. 0087050300654001 and 0087050300655284 amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac each, are ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner/accused on supurdnama after retaining Xerox copy thereof, after seeking an undertaking from the petitioner that she shall produce the aforesaid FDRs or the value thereof in case some better claimant is found entitled to the same. A copy of this judgment shall be sent down for compliance. 13. Revision petition is disposed of.