IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1295 of 2011 Between: B. Ramakrishna .. Appellant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the order in S.C.No.69 of 2010 on the ﬁle of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalli, dated 15-03- 2011, by which M.O.8-Hero Honda splender motorcycle was directed to be conﬁscated to the State on expiry of appeal time. The impugned judgment mentions the accused to have followed deceased Rama Chandra Reddy on M.O.8-motorcycle at the time of incident on 19-04- 2009 at about 5.30 A.M., according to the charge sheet ﬁled by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Rural Circle in Crime No.47 of 2009 of B. Kothakota police station. The accused was alleged to have committed murder of Rama Chandra Reddy resulting in his prosecution for an oﬀence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli, taking cognizance of the case in PRC.No.34 of 2009 and after copies of documents were furnished to the accused on his appearance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, which made over it to the trial Court. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and during trial, PWs.1 to 19 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no defence evidence was produced by him. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment on 15-03-2011, in which the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted him of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court directed conﬁscation of M.O.8- Hero Honda splender admittedly belonging to the accused against which the present criminal appeal has been filed. The appellant contended that when the accused was found not guilty and was acquitted, M.O.8-Hero Honda splender ought to have been released in his favour when admittedly it was seized from him by the investigating oﬃcer and when he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel representing Sri Md. Saleem, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ respondent. The point for consideration is whether the order of conﬁscation of M.O.8-Hero Honda splender is sustainable on fact and in law? The judgment of the trial Court in question, which discussed the factual background and the evidence in good detail, noted that the only eye- witness was PW.1. The trial Court observed several omissions and contradictions in the uncorroborated and interested evidence of PW.1. It found the claims of PW.1 to be quite unnatural and not reﬂecting the way in which the son should have reacted to the killing of his father. Even the time at which Ex.P.1-report was given by PW.1 to the police was also doubted apart from sending the First Information Report to the Court with abnormal delay. The trial Court rejected the various precedents relied on by the Public Prosecutor outright and considered even the presence of PW.1 at the scene of oﬀence doubtful, more so, as he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital and as PWs.2 and 3 never stated that they saw PW.1 at the scene of offence. It was on these and other grounds that the trial Court had acquitted the accused of the alleged oﬀence and even according to the allegations of the prosecution, M.O.8-Hero Honda splender was not the weapon of oﬀence but was alleged to have been used as the means of transport by the accused to reach the scene of oﬀence and when the accused was not proved to have committed the oﬀence at the alleged scene at the alleged time, there was no reason or logic behind directing the conﬁscation of M.O.8-Hero Honda splender to the State. Any order for disposal of property at the conclusion of trial under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is in the judicial discretion of the Court should be guided by the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record in that case. While M.O.8 was alleged to have been used in the commission of oﬀence as a means of transport and that allegation has not been proved, M.O.8 ought to have been returned to the accused from whose custody it was seized. Innocence of the oﬀence, which has been upheld by the trial Court, should have automatically led to the return of M.O.8 without any preconditions. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that against the judgment of acquittal, either the State or any person aggrieved did not prefer any further proceedings like an appeal so far, and therefore, the judgment in question had become ﬁnal. If the acquittal of the accused had thus become ﬁnal, for the same reasons for which he was acquitted, M.O.8-Hero Honda Splender should be ordered to be returned to him. In the result, the order of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in S.C.No.69 of 2010 in the judgment dated 15-03-2011 to conﬁscate M.O.8-Hero Honda Splender to the State after expiry of appeal time is set aside and M.O.8-Hero Honda Splender shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and the Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-11-2011 Ksn