1 mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 633 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2007 SANTAJI MADHUKAR JADHAV .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S. S. Tambekar for the applicant Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP CORAM:SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 9/8/2010 P.C. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with. 2. The applicant is the brother of one Sambhaji Jadhav who is the complainant in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2004 which was tried by the 2 Sessions Court at Kolhapur. In that case original accused 1 and 2 were tried inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. By the judgment and order dated 30/4/07 learned Sessions Judge has acquitted original accused 2 and convicted original accused 1 inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Accused 1 was sentenced to life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that accused 1 entered the house of Geetanjali wife of Santaji, assaulted her with a knife, robbed her of ornaments, left the house with her eight months old daughter Neha and threw her into a stream at Talere in Konkan region. According to the prosecution all this was done with the help of accused 2. 3. While disposing of the sessions case learned Sessions Judge ordered that ornaments seized from accused 1 Sandip and Wala and Painjan seized from the dead body of Neha be returned to the complainant Shri Santaji after appeal period is over. Due to oversight learned Sessions Judge described Santaji as the complainant. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that complainant is not Santaji but Sambhaji, brother of Santaji. The present application is filed by applicant Santaji for return of the property, however, in the title of the application Santaji was wrongly shown as the complainant. Pursuant to the liberty granted by us, learned counsel has deleted the word complainant from the title. Consequent amendment is 3 also made in the application. 4. Learned APP has produced in the court a statement recorded by the prison officer of Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba. The statement is dated 21/7/2010. Accused 1 has stated that no ornaments were seized from him, therefore, he has no objection if the ornaments are returned to the concerned person. Thus one thing is clear that accused 1 is not claiming the ornaments as the ornaments belonging to him. The said statement is marked ‘X”. 4. In our opinion, the said ornaments can be directed to be returned to the applicant as he is the husband of Geetanjali and father of Neha. We, therefore, direct that the gold ornaments which are lying in safe custody of Sessions Court at Kolhapur be returned to the applicant after the applicant executes PR Bond of Rs.1 lac and on condition that he shall produce the ornaments, if necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal. Cash amount of Rs.255/- lying with the Sessions Court be also returned to the applicant. The applicant shall not melt the ornaments till the appeal is disposed of. 5. Application is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 4