Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 vjBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 17.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 C.Kanagam (died) 1.C.Kumaresan 2.S.Mahalakshmi 3.Umamaheswari Rajendran ... Appellants 1 to 3 / LRs of the deceased sole appellant (defacto complainant) (Appellants 1 to 3 substituted and permitted to prosecute the appeal as per the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by this Court in Crl.M.P.(MD)No. 8711 of 2022 in Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017) vs. 1.Ponraj 2.The Inspector of Police, Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.65 of 2010 ...Respondent PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgement of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 29.04.2015 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 in Special C.A.No.63 of 2014 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District dated 16.10.2014 in C.C.No.75 of 2014. For Appellant : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) J U D G E M E N T This appeal has been filed challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 29.04.2015 in Special C.A.No.63 of 2014 setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District dated 16.10.2014 in C.C.No.75 of 2014. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2010, at about 09.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant was conversing in the cell phone with her daughter in her house at Panikka Nadar Kudiyiruppu, the accused trespassed into the house and attacked the defacto complainant on her head and robbed 27 1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels worth Rs. 2,19,000/- owned by her. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 3. On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered in Crime No.65 of 2010 on the file of the Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC. 4. After completing the legal mandates of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, charges have been framed against the accused for the offence under Section 394 IPC. When the accused was questioned, he denied his involvement and claimed to be tried. 5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW15 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. On the side of the accused DW1 and DW2 have been examined and no documentary evidence has been marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8 were marked. 6. After the conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 394 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months SI. On an appeal preferred by the accused 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in C.A.No.63 of 2014, the learned Judge had given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. Aggrieved over the acquittal, the defacto complainant has filed this appeal. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the defacto complainant (PW1) died and it is now reported that the accused / first respondent also died. The legal representatives of the deceased defacto complainant (PW1) have been impleaded as appellants 1 to 3. 8. Even though the appeal would be abated at the death of the accused / first respondent, the appellants 1 to 3 have grievance as to the jewels which have been recovered as case properties. The learned Trial Judge while disposing the case has observed that M.O.1 to M.O.8 have to be returned to the owner after the appeal time is lapsed. Out of the Material Objects, the appellants 1 to 3 are interested in M.O.1 to M.O.6 which are the jewels alleged to have been robbed by the accused / first respondent and for which complaint has been given. 9. Even though the I Appellate Court had given benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused / first respondent, it did not believe the version 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 of the accused that the case properties are the jewels belonged to him. It appears that during question under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated before the Court that he had sold his Tata Sumo Car and Discover Bike and with that money, he purchased the jewels and it belonged to him. The said fact was not proved before the I Appellate Court, despite he could get the benefit of doubt with regard to the occurrence. Even the I Appellate Court has believed the version of case of the defacto complainant (PW1) where she stated that her 27 1/2 sovereign jewels were lost. 10. So, the observation about the case properties made by both the Trial Court and the I Appellate Court would only lead to an irrefutable conclusion that the case properties belonged to the deceased defacto complainant who had filed a case and from whom the jewels were robbed. There is no counter claim for the jewels till the proceedings were completed before the Trial Court and the I Appellate Court and even till date. 11. Hence, there need not be any doubt with regard to the original owner who is eligible to make claim for the jewels M.O.1 to M.O.6. In fact, that could be the main reason why the defacto complainant has 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 chosen to file appeal against the acquittal of the accused and has been contesting the same till her life time. 12. Mr.A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also did not have any objection to hand over M.O.1 to M.O.6 to the appellants 1 to 3 and he acknowledged that the appellants 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased defacto complainant. 13. On reading of the evidence of PW9 Goldsmith, it is seen that the accused had handed over the jewels to PW9 to remake the jewellery by altering its design. Subsequently, the accused had given the altered jewels to PW10 and PW11 for pledging it with Muthoot Finance. PW10 and PW11 have stated in their evidence that the jewels have been handed over by the accused to them for pledging. 14. When the Trial Court and I Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the prosecution side evidence that the jewels did not belong to the accused, there cannot be any difficulty in concluding that the jewels are stolen and original owner can be none other than the deceased defacto complainant. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 15. As the appellants 1 to 3 are said to be legal representatives of the deceased defacto complainant, the Trial Court is ordered to hand over the jewels to the appellants 1 to 3 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and make relevant entries in the concerned Registers. As the accused / first respondent also died, the appeal against the accused / first respondent gets abated. 16. With the above direction, this Criminal Appeal is closed as abated. 17.07.2025 mbi To 1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J. mbi Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2017 17.07.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis