Man Accused of Killing Parents Gets Fresh Review of Seized Gold After Karnataka HC Says Trial Court Mistook His Wife for His Mother

The petitioner, accused in a case alleging the murder of his parents, sought release under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC of gold articles seized during the investigation.

The trial court rejected the application, reasoning in part that bills in the name of Smt. Annapurna related to the petitioner’s deceased mother and that the petitioner might be disqualified from inheriting his parents’ property under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The petitioner contended that Annapurna was his wife, not his mother, and claimed that he and his wife had purchased the articles.

The High Court found that the trial court had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise, while also noting that the bills did not cover all the seized articles.

Sections 451 and 457 CrPC require the court considering release of seized property to assess the supporting material, the identity and ownership of each article, and the circumstances of seizure, and to give reasons for deciding whether any article may be released, subject to appropriate conditions.

Bills are relevant evidence but are not conclusive proof of ownership; they must be considered with the other circumstances and cannot be disregarded on the basis of an erroneous identification of the person named in them.

Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, concerning disqualification from inheriting the estate of a person murdered, is relevant only if the property is found to belong to a deceased parent and the petitioner claims it by succession; ownership must first be determined.

The trial court’s treatment of Annapurna as the petitioner’s deceased mother was factually mistaken: the petitioner said she was his wife, while his mother was named Saraswathamma. That error undermined the court’s treatment of the bills.

However, the bills covered only some of the seized articles and could not, by themselves, establish ownership of all of them. The trial court therefore had to assess each bill against the corresponding article, the source of purchase funds, and the other available material.

It also could not apply Section 25 indiscriminately before determining whether any articles belonged to the deceased parents and were claimed by the petitioner through succession.

The trial court was directed to examine the bills, the articles to which they relate, the source of funds, and the other relevant material; bills were not to be treated as conclusive proof of ownership, and Section 25 was to be considered if the articles were found to belong to the deceased parents. Any application by the petitioner’s wife was to be considered separately.