KIRUBANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal challenges a part of the judgment of the Sessions Division, Vellore made in S.C.No,8 of 2005 dated 25.03.2006 whereby the Trial Court in the final part of the judgment had issued a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to handing over the properties viz., M.Os.5 to 25, 33 to 35 to the legal representatives of one Raman Naicker on production of the Legal Heirship Certificate.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place in the house of Sampoornam, the second deceased when she was staying with Raman Naicker at 10.30 p.m. on 19.11.2003. M.Os.33 to 35 jewels which were worn by Sampooran at the time of occurrence were recovered from her body. Following the post mortem, they were produced before the Court. Insofar as M.Os.No,5 to 25 were concerned, the prosecution came forward with a case that they were actually stolen from the house of Sampoornam. They were recovered from the accused/appellant but the Trial Court was not ready to believe the evidence putforth by the prosecution as to the alleged confessional statement and recovery of M.Os.No,5 to 25 from the accused/appellant. It was also not the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that M.Os.No,5 to 25 belonged to him not even a suggestion was put to any one of the witnesses and the accused was not questioned regarding the same while questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Hence, it is quite clear that all those jewels belonged to the second deceased Sampoornam. Hence, on, the death of Sampoornam, it must go to the appellant, son of Sampoornam. Under such circumstances that part of the judgment has got to be set aside and necessary direction has got to be issued.