THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1043 of 2010 BETWEEEN: B.Swapna … Appellant AND 1. The State of A.P. & 10 others. … Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1044 of 2010 BETWEEEN: B.Swapna … Appellant AND 1. The State of A.P. & 8 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1043 of 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1044 of 2010 JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed against two judgments dated 07.06.2010 passed by the VIII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Lal Bahadurnagar in S.C.Nos.405 of 2008 and 406 of 2008 insofar as they relate to disposal of M.O.25 cash (FDR) for Rs.9,37,670/- and M.O.15 cash (FDR) of Rs.4,02,000/- respectively. The appellant is A10 in S.C.No.405 of 2008 and A6 in S.C.No.406 of 2008. She is wife of A1 K.Raju, who is no more and who did not face trial in the lower Court as the cases against him stood awaited due to his death. The cases in the lower Court relate to the offences punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. By the impugned judgments, the lower Court acquitted all the accused who faced trial in both the matters. Insofar as MOs 25 and 15 respectively are concerned, the lower Court directed disbursement of the said cash among the defacto complainants/victims proportionately. 2. The Police deposited the respective cash before the Magistrate representing the booty in the respective crimes. No part of the amount was seized from the appellant. The Police seized the amount from Kakatiya Grameena Bank, Jangan Branch and deposited the amounts in the respective cases. It is stated that A1, K.Raju died in Police encounter. According to the prosecution, the amounts were in deposit with the Bank in the name of A1. The police after arresting of the appellant, who is the wife of Raju, seized certain stolen properties from her possession and got her confession statement recorded in the presence of mediators. In the lower Court, the mediators turned hostile to the prosecution. But the Police Officer marked the said Panchanama relating to statement of and seizure from the appellant in the lower Court. Since the Panchanama is in the nature of a confession statement, that portion of confession contained in the Panchanama cannot be used against the appellant in order to convict her, since no part of the confession was saved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In any event, subject matter of these appeals is not the acquittal of the appellant. 3. In the statement covered by the Panchanama, the appellant stated inter alia that she does not know as to where her husband secreted the stolen properties and that her husband secreted some amounts in Bank. She did not specify the bank in which her husband secreted the stolen cash. 4. During trial in the lower Court, the appellant did not put forward any claim for the cash lying in FDR’s either under Section 451 Cr.P.C. or under Section 452 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that during examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant made a claim for the said cash on the ground that she is the legal heir of the deceased A1. But, in pursuance of the said claim, the appellant did not lead any evidence to show that the cash covered by MOs 25 and 15 respectively was the self- acquired property of A1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Saroornagar by name T.S.A. Prasad was examined as witness during trial in the lower Court. In Cross-examination, the said witness denied suggestions of the defence counsel that the property seized from the bank is not stolen property and is self- acquired property of the deceased A1. In the absence of any specific evidence let in by the appellant during trial in the lower Court to prove that the cash covered by MOs 25 and 15 respectively is the self acquired property of the deceased A1, it cannot be said that the appellant as legal heir of A1 is entitled for return of the said cash seized by the Police from the bank. Even as per her statement contained in Panchanama, her husband who is the deceased A1 secreted the stolen cash in bank. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that disposal of the said cash covered by MOs 25 and 15 respectively by the lower Court by way of distribution among the defacto complainants/victims proportionately is not illegal. The appellant is not entitled for return of the said cash. 5. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 18.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1043 of 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1044 of 2010 DATED:18.04.2011 ysk