Shyam Sunder vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—With the consent of Sri S.S. Rajput, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. the appeal is heard and disposed of finally.

This is an appeal for release of a licensed gun alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence of murder, of Smt. Shringari Devi on 1331998 at about 8.30 p.m. in village Uttampur, Thana Gonda, District Aligarh.

On conclusion of the trial the accused persons have been acquitted of the charge of murder on the ground that none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution version and thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons in the alleged commission of the offence.

After acquittal in the case the appellant, Shyam Sunder moved an application for release of licensed gun SBBL number 18088 stated to have been used in the commission of the offence of murder. The Court below rejected the application on the grounds; firstly, that this gun was not produced before the Court during the trial and marked material exhibit; secondly, that the applicant though used the gun in the commission of the offence but he has succeeded to win over the witness, therefore, they resiled to support the prosecution version.

The provision for the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial is provided in Section 452, Cr. PC. which lays down when an enquiry or trial in any criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody (emphasis applied), or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence (emphasis applied). The connotation of the section is amply clear. It does not require the property, to be disposed of after conclusion of the trial, should be exhibited and also that it should be produced before the Court. It rather makes more clear that even if the property is not exhibited but is in custody of the Court it shall be disposed of by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession of any thing which has been used in the commission of any offence if the Court considers that property may be disposed of that too, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person.

The impugned order of the Court below is not in consonance with the provision of Section 452, Cr. P.C.. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

The appeal is allowed. The gun in question shall be released in favour of the appellant, on his possession of valid licence from the competent authority.