PRABHAKAR VAMAN PISHE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.