[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Deepak Haldar on 27 February, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                          -1-
                                                    CRL.A No. 1225 of 2016



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026           R
                                       PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                                          AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2016 (A)
            BETWEEN:

                 STATE OF KARNATAKA
                 BY R.T. NAGAR P.S.
                 BENGALURU CITY
                 REPRESENTED BY
                 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-560 032.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                 (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)

            AND:

            1.   DEEPAK HALDAR
                 S/O. GORANGO HALDAR
                 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                 RESIDING AT SHYAMANAGAR
                 KRISHNACHANDPURA
                 KARANJALI POST
Digitally        KULPI THANA, SOUTH 24, PARAGANA
signed by
ANJALI M         WEST BENGAL-743 348.
Location:
HIGH        2.   SUCHITRA HALDAR
COURT OF         W/O. DEEPAK HALDAR
KARNATAKA
                 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
                 RESIDING AT SHYAMANAGAR
                 KRISHNACHANDPURA
                 KARANJALI POST, KULPI THANA
                 SOUTH 24, PARAGANA
                 WEST BENGAL-743 348.

            3.   MOHAMMED SARBAL @ RAJ
                 S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM
                 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                 RESIDING AT SRIRAM CHOWLTRY
                 4TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY
                              -2-
                                     CRL.A No. 1225 of 2016



     OLD GUDDAHALLI ROAD
     MYSORE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 060
     PERMANENT ADDRESS
     KAMALAPUR VILLAGE AND POST
     PAROO THANA
     MUZAFFUR NAGAR DISTRICT
     BIHAR.

4.   BIDAN SHIKARI
     S/O. CHANDAN SHIKARI
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
     RESIDING AT OPP. TO PASSPORT OFFICE
     8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
     BENGALURU-560 034.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS
     (BY SRI G.R. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)

                            ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE LXIV (CCH-65) ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN SESSIONS CASE
NO.433 OF 2011 DATED 29-2-2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10-2-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                                 -3-
                                         CRL.A No. 1225 of 2016



                          CAV JUDGMENT

(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This Appeal is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the

judgment of acquittal passed by the learned LXIV Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, in S.C.

No.433/2011 dated 29.02.2016 and prayed to convict accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,

302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short, "IPC").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. The

appellant is the complainant-State and respondent Nos.1 to 4

are accused Nos.1 to 4.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

Accused No.2, Suchitra Haldar, was working as a maid in

the house of the deceased, namely Professor Purushotham Lal

Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and their son Munna Sachidev.

Accused No.1, Deepak Haldar, is the husband of accused No.2.

Accused No.3, Mohammed Sarbal @ Raj, accused No.4, Bidan

Shikari and accused No.5 Pradeep Naskar @

Mucche(absconding accused), are the friends of accused No.1.

They conspired together to rob cash, gold ornaments and

valuable articles from the house of Purushotham Lal Sachidev,

Rita Sachidev and their son Munna Sachidev, and hatched a

plan to commit murder, accordingly, on 15.02.2009, in the

early morning, accused Nos.3 and 4 alongwith absconding

accused No.5 came near the gate of the house of deceased at

5.45 a.m. and called accused No.1. At that time, accused No.1

was waiting for the arrival of accused Nos.3 to 5 and he sent

accused No.2 to bring accused Nos.3 to 5 inside the house and

took them to a room. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 conspired

together to commit the offences and accordingly, all the

accused decided to send accused No.2 to watch near the gate

in order to manage or guard, that no one should enter inside

the house, accordingly, she went there. Accordingly, accused

Nos.3 to 5 went near the house, accused No.1 knocked the

house of the house. At that time, Smt. Rita Sachidev opened

the door. Immediately, accused No.1, 3 to 5 caught hold Smt.

Rita, accused No.4 closed her mouth, took her to a room,

accused No.3 took to pin wire(M.O.8) and tied her neck,

thereby committed her murder.

4. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 went inside the

room of Purshotham Lal Sachidev and caught hold him.

Accused No.3 closed his mouth and prevented him from raising

hue and cry, accused Nos.1 and 4 caught hold Purshotham and

accused No.5 squeezed his neck with a dupatta(M.O.10) and

thereby murdered him.

5. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 went inside the

room of Deepak Sachidev @ Munna. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

caught hold Deepak, accused No.1 closed his mouth, accused

No.4 took Nokia charger wire(M.O.9) and tied his neck and

thereby murdered him.

6. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 robbed gold Mangalya

chain, two gold bangles, one gold ring, cash of Rs.30,000/-

kept in the almirah, seven silk sarees, a wall clock and two

silver lamps and attempted to conceal the deadbodies. Soon

after the incident, accused Nos.1 to 5 shared all the robbed

articles. Accused No.3 took a gold bangle and cash of

Rs.6,000/-. Accused No.4 took a gold bangle and cash of

Rs.6,000/-. Accused No.5 took a gold ring and cash of

Rs.6,000/-. Accused Nos.1 and 2 took cash of Rs.12,000/-

together, gold mangalya chain, seven silk sarees, two silver

lamps and a wall clock, as their share of robbed articles. Thus,

they have committed murder of Purshotham Lal Sachidev, Rita

Sachidev and Deepak Sachidev @ Munna and robbed above

articles.

7. This fact came to lime light on 16.02.2009, when the

deceased's nephew, PW32-Anurag Sachidev, informed PW1-

Rajesh Diwan that nobody was picking up his phone call though

he called many times at the deceased's house and asked him to

go and see what had happened. On hearing this, PW1 went to

the house of the deceased and saw that the front door was

locked from outside. When he was searching here and there,

one chiranjeevi, the neighbour residing behind the house of the

deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev, also accompanied him.

Both searched and opened the window and found that Munna

was lying on the floor in his room. On seeing that, they

informed the same to the police.

8. On receipt of the information, the R.T. Nagar Police,

Bengaluru came to the spot, broke open the door and found

that all the inmates of the house were dead. Thereafter, they

received the first information from PW1 and registered the FIR-

Ex.P47 against unknown persons, investigated the case. During

the course of investigation, it was revealed that, soon after the

incident, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were residing in the

outhouse of deceased Purshotham Lal Sachidev absconded and

hence, the Investigating Officer traced accused Nos.1 and 2 in

West Bengal, brought them to Bengaluru, enquired them and

they confessed before the IO that they commited murder of

deceased persons and robbed the aforesaid articles from their

house in collusion with accused Nos.3 to 5. Hence, the IO

arrested accused Nos.3 to 5, enquired them, gold, silver, seven

sarees and a bag were recovered at their instance. After

completion of the investigation, the IO submitted the charge

sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable

under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

9. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, has

examined PWs.1 to 33 and got marked 78 documents as Exs.P1

to P78 and also identified MOs.1 to 45, whereas the accused

has got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

10. The trial Court, after considering the oral and

documentary evidences on record, acquitted the accused for

the offences charged, holding that the prosecution has failed to

prove the case. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of

acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State has preferred this

appeal.

11. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP

appearing for the appellant-State and Sri G.R. Sheshadri,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

12. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for the appellant-State

contended that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, the

facts of the case and the evidence on record. The reasons

assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal is erroneous one.

The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The last

seen theory has been supported by PW 1 to 3, who are

relatives of the deceased and they have categorically stated

that they have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 in the house of

deceased and they were residing in the outhouse of the

deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev. The oral testimony of

these witnesses is supported by PW8-Vijayakumar, who is the

paper vendor, and who has seen them on the date of incident,

when he came to deliver the newspaper early in the morning on

the date of the incident. Further, PW32, the adopted son of

deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev, also corroborated the

evidence of these witnesses. These points ought to have been

considered by the trial Court while assessing the evidence in

the case, and since the evidence is cogent, consistent and

trustworthy, failure to consider all these points and acquitting

the accused is not proper.

13. It is further contended that the trial Court ought to

have considered the point that the motive behind the murder

was for gain. This point has been established by the

circumstances that the belongings of the entire house was

looted, it was locked from outside, and some of the belongings

were recovered at the instance of the accused. The prosecution

has clearly established the motive behind the murder beyond

all reasonable doubt, but the trial Court ignored it while

considering the evidence.

14. It is contended that, so far as the recovery is

concerned, certain items were said to have been recovered

from the house of PW14-Kalpana Sardar at the instance of

accused Nos.1 and 2, who is the relative of accused No.1 viz.,

cousin of accused No.1(accused No.1 is her aunt's son). PW14-

Kalpana Sardar and PW15-Anjali Sardar are relatives of

accused Nos.1 and 2. Soon after the incident, the accused kept

the suitcase/bag in the house of PW14-Kalpana Sardar and

went to their native place. When these accused were nabbed by

- 10 -

the police and brought to Bengaluru, on interrogation, accused

Nos.1 and 2 showed the place where they had concealed the

suit case and some of the items were recovered in the presence

of panchas. The recovered articles are said to belong to family

of deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev. Hence, these points

which are cogent and trustworthy, the trial Court could have

taken into consideration the above mentioned points and

convicted the accused.

15. It is also contended that, the gold bangles have also

been seized from PW17-Janardhana Shetty at the instance of

accused No.3-Mohammed Sarbal @ Raj and accused No.4-

Bidan Shikari. Hence, the prosecution has proved the recovery

and the complicity of the accused in the crime. These points

ought to have been considered by the trial Court while

assessing the evidence and ought to have convicted all the

accused for having committed triple murder.

16. It is contended that, soon after the incident, all these

accused absconded from the scene of occurrence. PW29-

Sridhar Bhat, owner of the hotel, where accused No.1 was

working, has stated that accused No.1 had worked only for one

month in his hotel and he went away without informing him

- 11 -

after he received one month salary and advance of Rs.200/-

from him. This evidence goes to show that, the accused

persons have deliberately left Bengaluru after the incident.

This absconding attitude strengthened the chain of

circumstances, but the trial Court failed to consider the same.

17. It is contended that, the police have arrested accused

Nos.1 and 2 from their native village; which is evident from the

documents marked in this case. These are all the

circumstances, which could have been considered by the trial

Court. However, failure to consider these points, that too, in a

triple murder case is highly improbable. The prosecution has

proved the chain of circumstances viz., last seen theory,

motive, recovery of gold, silver and other articles, conduct of

the accused by reliable and cogent evidence beyond all

reasonable doubt. The trial Court ignored these points and

held that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt, which is erroneous one. Hence, the

impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and prayed for

convicting accused Nos.1 to 4 for the aforesaid offences.

18. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently

contended that, in the FIR, names of respondents were not

- 12 -

found place. Nobody had suspected the respondents. In fact,

PW32, the adopted son of deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev

and Rita Sachidev, was an alcoholic person and addicted to

drug etc., and he was having bad vices. Accordingly, PW32

was taken to police station on suspicion, he was in police

station for almost 30 days and thereafter these

respondents/accused have been falsely implicated in the case.

It is contended that, Purushotham Lal Sachidev had executed a

Will in favour of one Goutham Kotare, wherein he bequeathed

his properties to Goutham Kotare and therefore, Goutham

Kotare is beneficiary under the Will, thus the Investigating

Officer ought to have suspected Goutham Kotare, on the

ground that, he is beneficiary under the Will and in that line,

investigation was not done. It is contended that, one Kalipodu

Sardar, father-in-law of accused No.1 has not been examined.

He further contended that, one Prabeer, Kalpana, Jamuna and

Sumitra, who are material witnesses, have not been examined.

He further contended that, the materials collected by

Investigating Officer are all concocted documents to implicate

the respondents in the crime. All witnesses have stated as per

the instructions of the investigating officer and family members

of the deceased persons. The chain of circumstances are not

- 13 -

completed. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the

accused persons and hence, no interference is called for in that

regard. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the

State.

19. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and on examining the material on record, the

following points would arise for our consideration:

"a. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt that death of Rita Sachidev,

Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Deepak @ Munna

Sachidev is homicidal?

b. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 4 along with

absconding accused No.5 conspired to commit murder of

deceased persons, in order to commit robbery of gold

and other valuable articles from their house, thereby

committed criminal conspiracy, murder and in order to

cause disappearance of evidence of murder, they locked

the main door of the house, robbed articles and kept few

robbed articles in the house of PW14-Kalpana Sardar, in

order to cause disappearance of evidence, thereby

- 14 -

committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B,

302, and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC?

c. Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the

trial Court requires interference at the hands of this

Court?"

Point Nos.1 and 2:

20. Since point Nos.1 and 2 requires common discussion,

these points are taken together. Before proceeding further in

analysing the evidence led in the matter, it is to be borne in

mind that this appeal is filed by the State against the judgment

of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable

under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC

and hence, primarily accused Nos.1 to 4 have the double

benefit. Firstly, the presumption under law is that, unless their

guilt is proved, the accused have to be treated as innocent

persons in the alleged crime. Secondly, the accused have

already been enjoying the benefit of judgment of acquittal

passed under the impugned judgment. As such, bearing the

same in mind, the evidence placed by the prosecution in the

matter is required to be analysed.

- 15 -

(a) The Hon'ble Apex Court, in its judgment in the case of

Chandrappa and others -v- State of Karnataka reported in

(2007) 4 SCC 415, while laying down the general principles

regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing in an

appeal against an order of acquittal, was pleased to observe at

paragraph Nos.42(4) and 42(5) as below:

"42(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."

(b) In the case of Sudershan Kumar -v- State of

Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666, while

referring to Chandrappa's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

at paragraph No.31 of its judgment was pleased to hold that, it

is the cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that

presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an

order of acquittal. The Appellate Court, in such a case, would

interfere only for very substantial and compelling reasons.

- 16 -

Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440, at paragraph No.25 of

its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe

as below:

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."

21. The above principle laid down by it in its previous

case was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ravi Sharma -v- State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 536 and also in the case of

Roopwanti -v- State of Haryana and others reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 179.

22. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, we proceed to analyse the evidence placed

by the prosecution in the case:

23. PW1-Rajesh Diwan, has stated that deceased Rita

Sachidev was his Aunt. The deceased persons were staying in a

- 17 -

house at R.T.Nagar main road, Bengaluru. Deceased

Purushotham Lal Sachidev was a professor, their son deceased

Munna and their adopted son Anurag Sachidev(PW.32) were

residing in the said house. He further stated that, on

16.02.2009, at 9.45 a.m., when he was in his office, he

received phone call from one Raju from Delhi, the nephew of

Rita Sachidev stating that he tried to contact Rita Sachidev, but

nobody was picking his call in the house of Rita Sachidev,

accordingly, Raju requested him to visit the house of Rita

Sachidev. Immediately, he went to the house of Rita Sachidev

and her house was locked from outside. Hence, from the

window, he saw a dead body lying on the floor. Accordingly, he

informed the police, thus, police came to the spot, broke open

the lock of the main door, thus, they entered the house and

saw the deadbody of Deepak Sachidev in the bedroom near cot.

They went to another bedroom, it was under lock, thus, the

police broke open the lock and entered the room where they

found the deadbody of Rita Sachidev. Thereafter, they went to

another bedroom, where they did not found anything. At the

same time, dog squad came and the dog started to bark in

third bedroom, where there was a cot and below the cot, there

were suitcases. Hence, the police removed those suitcases,

- 18 -

behind it, the dead body of Purshotham Lal Sachidev was

found. Hence, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 and seized

MOs.1 to 7 i.e., 3 sample cotton, 3 blood stain cotton and a

broken door piece(patti), on the spot under Ex-P2 spot

panchanama. He further stated that in the month of November

2010, police called him to the police station, where, he saw

accused Nos.1 to 4. He further stated that accused Nos.1 and 2

had came to the house of deceased persons recently prior to

the incident, where he identified accused Nos.1 and 2.

PW.1 was cross examined. In the cross-examination, he

has stated that prior to 5-6 days of the incident, he visited the

house of CW.1 and at that time, he came to know about

accused No. 2 who joined the house of deceased, prior to 15

days of the incident, as maid. At that time, he closely saw

accused Nos.1 and 2. He further admitted that he was not

talking with PW.32.

24. PW2-Dr. Rajkumar, the relative of deceased persons,

has stated that soon after the incident, he also visited the

house of deceased persons along with PW1 and saw the dead

body of the deceased persons. Insofar as conduct of inquest

- 19 -

panchanama on the dead body of deceased persons, he turned

hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

25. PW3-Raghuveer Rajkumar, the son of PW2 and also

relative of deceased persons stated that, he visited the house

of deceased along with his father, however, he did not see any

dead bodies and police have not recorded his statement and he

never saw accused Nos.1 to 4 in the house of accused. Hence,

he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and has not

supported the case.

26. PWs.4 and 5 witnesses to inquest panchanama

(Ex.P5) have stated that the police have conducted inquest

panchanama on the dead body of deceased Purushotham Lal

Sachidev.

27. PW6-Rajesh, witness to spot mahazar Ex.P2, has

stated that the police have conducted spot panchanama in

connection with the murder of deceased persons in their house.

He further stated that, while conducting spot panchanama, he

has seen electric wire on the neck of deceased Rita Sachidev,

mobile charger wire on the neck of deceased Deepak Sachidev

and duppatta on the neck of deceased Purushotham Lal

Sachidev. Further, the police collected sample cotton,

- 20 -

bloodstained cotton, wire, charger and duppatta (shawl) as per

MOs.1 to 6 and MOs.8 to 10.

28. PW7-Vasantha Kumar, witness to inquest

panchanama - Ex.P6, has stated that the police have conducted

inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased Deepak

Sachidev. He also has seen visible injury on the neck of

deceased Deepak Sachidev and a Nokia charger wire. He partly

turned hostile to the case of prosecution and in the cross-

examination, he has not supported the case of prosecution.

29. PW8-Vijay Kumar, paper supplier to the house of

deceased and is also last seen witness, has stated that he was

supplying newspapers to the house of deceased persons, where

four persons were staying viz., deceased Sachidev, his wife and

his handicapped son and also his adopted son. He further

stated that, on 15.02.2009 deceased Sachidev died. On the

same day, at 6:45 a.m., he had supplied newspaper to the

house of deceased, at that time, the maid servant of Sachidev

collected newspaper and three persons were standing in front

of the gate of the house of deceased, a person was standing

inside the house of deceased. After supplying newspaper, he

proceeded further on the following day of the incident he saw

- 21 -

police and public near the house of deceased and later, he

came to know that Sachidev, his wife and son was murdered.

Thereafter, on 04.12.2010, he saw the accused persons, who

committed murder of Sachidev, his wife and son in television,

who were arrested by the police, thus, he identified said

persons, he also came to know that another accused was

absconding. He came to know about the name of maid as

Suchitra Haldar and the name of her husband is Deepak Haldar.

Thus, he came to know that accused persons committed

murder for gain. PW.8 was cross examined. He admitted that

he has never seen the adopted son of deceased Purushotham

Sachidev. He was not familiar with the maid servants and he

never interacted with them. He saw maid servant in front of the

gate alongwith three persons in front of the gate, he does not

know as to how the incident occurred. Further, he admitted

that, he cannot definitely identify that the maid servant and

three accused persons who were standing in front of the gate of

house of the deceased. Rest of the suggestions were denied by

PW.8.

30. PW9-Smt. Chanchal Pahava, who is a witness to

inquest panchanama-Ex.P7 conducted on the dead body of Rita

Sachidev and seizure mahazar - Ex.P8 has stated that police

- 22 -

have conducted inquest panchanama on the deadbody of Rita

Sachidev and seized M.O.8 wire from her neck under Ex-P8

panchanama. At that time, the police prepared list of 38 items

with regard to valuable articles and documents such as FD

bonds, NSC certificates, UTI certificate, property records as per

M.O.9 to 35. The police also seized M.O.11 to 18 gold articles

from the house.

31. PW10-Kunnaram, the pawn broker, has stated that

the police conducted seizure panchanama as per Ex.P36 in his

pawn shop and seized a gold bangle weighing 13.3 grams. He

further stated that accused No.3 sold said bangle to him. In his

cross-examination, he stated that police came to his shop with

accused and took him to the police station and asked him to

give the gold ornaments, which were sold by the accused.

32. PW11-Manohar is another seizure mahazar witness to

Ex.P36, who has stated in line with PW10.

33. PW12-Ashwak Pasha, is witness to seizure mahazar

Ex-P37 and P38 wherein, the police have seized saree, golden

lamp and a chain.

- 23 -

34. PW13-Nagesh, a witness to spot panchanamas

Exs.P39 and P40, has stated that on 27.11.2010, the police

visited the scene of offence, where they have drawn mahazar

as per Ex.P39 as shown by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. After 15 to

20 days of the incident, the police conducted spot panchanama

as per Ex-P40 at the instance of accused persons, where they

alleged to have conspired together to commit the crime.

35. PW14-Kalpana Sardar, cousin of accused No.1, has

stated that accused No.1 is her cousin; accused No.2 is wife of

accused No.1. About 3 years ago, when she was residing at

Vasanth Nagara, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to her house and

kept two bags and went to their native place. She further

stated that, later, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the

police in connection with this case, they came to her house

alongwith her sister Anjali Sardhar(PW.15). At that time,

accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the custody of police, they showed

a hand bag kept in her house which contained seven sarees,

seven silver lamps and a mangalya chain. She came to know

that accused Nos.1 and 2 in connivance with accused Nos.3 to

5 committed murder of three persons and took said black

colour and mud colour bag to her house. She also stated that

accused Nos.1 and 2 brought said bags from the house of the

- 24 -

said persons and told her that they were returning to their

native place as the health conditions of their children were not

good. Hence, she identified seven sarees as per M.Os.20 to 26

and silver lamp as M.O.27. She also identified wall clock as

M.O.30. She was cross examined, however, nothing has been

elicited from her mouth to discredit her testimony. Further, the

accused has not brought any animosity of PW.14 with accused

Nos.1 and 2.

36. PW15-Anjali Sardar, the sister of PW14 and relative of

accused No. 1. She showed the police where PW14 was working

and she identifies the sarees, silver lamps and mangalya chain

and she reiterated the evidence of PW14 and corroborated her

oral testimony.

37. PW16-Inayath Ulla Shariff, the owner of suitcase

shop, where accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly purchased suitcase,

has stated that about 6 months ago, accused Nos.1 and 2 came

to his shop and they purchased the suitcase for Rs.450/-.

Hence, the police seized said suitcase under Ex.P38. Hence,

PW16 identified accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Court.

38. PW17-D. Janardana Shetty, the owner of jewellery

shop where accused No.4 sold a bangle, has stated that soon

- 25 -

after the incident, one day accused No.4 came to his shop and

sold the golden bangle. Thereafter, the police and accused

No.4 came to his shop, where accused No.4 identified the

golden bangle, which was sold to him, in presence of police.

Accordingly, the police seized the golden bangle vide Ex.P38,

Amanath panchanama. PW17 identified the golden bangle vide

MO.31.

39. PW18-Thousiff Pasha, in his evidence has stated that

the police have conducted Exs.P37 and P38 - seizure

panchanama and seized two silver lamps and Sarees under

Exs.P37. Thereafter, the police took him alongwith accused to

the jewellery shop, where he showed a golden bangle. Thus,

same was seized under Ex.P38 amanath panchanama. The

witness identified those articles as per MOs.20 to 27.

40. PW19-Vijaya Kumar, the police constable, has stated

that on 16.02.2009, he accompanied the dog squad and he

took one Doberman called Indra, went to the house of

deceased. The dogs inspected the house of deceased. The dog

took them to the outhouse, there the dog smelled and from the

main gate, the dog came out of the gate and faced towards

Mekri circle road. Hence, he submitted his report.

- 26 -

41. PW20-Govindappa, the Police Constable, in his

evidence has stated that on 16.02.2009, he took the dead body

of Purushottam Lal Sachidev to the Ambedkar Medical College

for conducting post-mortem examination and after post-

mortem examination, he took the dead body and handed over

to one Alex Joseph, who is the relative of the deceased. He

also stated that soon after post-mortem examination, the

doctor handed over the clothes of deceased to him and later he

handed over the said clothes to IO.

42. PW21-Dr.Nagaraj, conducted post mortem

examination on the dead body of Deepak Sachidev, Rita

Sachidev and Purshotham Lal Sachidev. In this regard, he

issued post-mortem examination reports as per Exs.P41 to 43

respectively. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of

death of deceased persons is due to respiratory failure,

consequent to the ligature strangulation.

43. PW22-Nagaraj, the Head Constable, carried FIR to the

Court.

44. PW23-Shashidhar H.E, Assistant Executive Engineer,

PWD, has stated that, on 03.12.2010, as per the request of IO

- 27 -

and his higher authority, he visited the house of deceased and

drew sketch as per Ex.P44.

45. PW24-Subash Chandrappa, the Nodal Officer, Airtel

Company, Bengaluru, has stated that the IO requested the

Airtel Company, Nodal Office, Bengaluru for issuance of the call

details in respect of mobile number 9945617656 from

01.02.2009 till 15.02.2009. Accordingly, he submitted the call

details in respect of the aforesaid mobile number as per

Ex.P46.

46. PW25- Siddalingaiah, PSI, has stated that on

16.02.2009, at 11.45 a.m., when he was on duty, he came to

know about the murder of deceased persons in R.T.Nagar area.

Hence, after receipt of the information, he visited the house of

deceased persons, where he saw the dead body of Purushottam

Lal Sachidev, his wife Rita Sachidev and his son Munna @

Deepak Sachidev, they were murdered. Therefore, he informed

said aspect to Police Inspector Prasad and visited the scene of

offence along with PW26-Prasad and as per his directions, he

conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of Deepak

Sachidev as per Ex.P6 and thereafter, he shifted the dead body

of Munna Sachidev to Ambedkar Medical College for post-

- 28 -

mortem examination and insofar as two dead bodies are

concerned, Head Constable No.3034 shifted the body to

Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru.

47. PW26-Prasad, Police Inspector, has stated that on

16.02.2009, Rajesh Diwan-PW1, visited the police station and

lodged complaint as per Ex.P1. Hence, registered the FIR.

Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence, drew spot

panchanama, collected certain articles and secured FSL expert,

fingerprint expert and dog squad, collected important and

incriminating articles at the spot, recorded statements of the

witnesses, sent the dead bodies to the hospital for post-

mortem examination, collected the clothes of deceased and

post-mortem reports and handed over further investigation to

Police Inspector Poovaiah(PW.30).

48. PW27-Ankegowda, the Police Inspector, Finger Print

Bureau, has stated that on 16.02.2009, he visited the scene of

offence and took certain finger prints from 2 wooden cupboard,

1 steel almirah, 2 steel glass, 2 plastic covers. However, no

finger impressions were taken from the articles. Thus, he

submitted his report as per Ex.P48.

- 29 -

49. PW28-Shankara G. Kugatore, Police Constable, who

secured accused Nos.1 and 2 on 16.11.2010 and produced

them before the IO and on 25.11.2010, he secured accused

Nos.3 and 4 and produced them before the IO.

50. PW29-Sridhar Bhat, the Owner of hotel at Jaymahal,

has stated that, he has been running a hotel on Jayamahal road

since 22 years. During 2009, one Deepak-accused No.1 joined

his hotel in the month of January and he was staying in

R.T.Nagar. Accused No.1-Deepak worked for almost one

month for a salary of Rs.2,400/- and thereafter he took

Rs.200/- as advance and later he did not attend his work.

Later, he contacted accused No.1, in turn, accused No.1 replied

that due to health reasons, he cannot attend the work.

Thereafter, the police came to enquire about accused No.1 in

his hotel and after couple of months, the Police brought

accused No.1 to his hotel, thus, he identified him and stated

that during January 2009, he worked under him in the hotel.

51. PW30-Poovaiah, the Police Inspector, who

investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against accused

persons.

- 30 -

52. PW31-Rangegowda, Assistant Director, FSL,

Madiwala, has stated that on 04.06.2009, he received 12 seized

bottles from the IO containing viscera of three deceased

persons, wherein Item Nos.1 to 4 belonged to deceased

Purushotham Lal Sachidev, item Nos.5 to 8 belonged to Rita

Sachidev and item No.9 to 12 belonged to Deepak Sachidev.

He conducted examination on 29.06.2009 and found that there

was no poisonous substance in Item Nos.1 to 12. Accordingly,

he submitted his report as per Ex.P77.

53. PW32-Anurag Sachidev, the adopted son of deceased

Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Rita Sachidev. He has stated

that he know accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were

working as maid in the house of deceased prior to the incident.

He stated that on 14.02.2009 at 12 noon, he requested his

mother to give Rs.1,000/-, but his mother gave Rs.800/- only.

Thus, he took quarrel with her and went along with his friends

and on the same night, he did not return to the house and he

stayed in the house of Josman and Alice. On the same day, at

10.00 p.m. he called up to his family members, but they did

not pick up his call. He further stated that, on 16.02.2009,

again he called to his home, but nobody had picked up his call.

Therefore, he informed said aspect to one Amit Katari and

- 31 -

informed that something had happened in the house.

Accordingly, he insisted him to visit the house and on the same

day at 12.30 noon, he came to the house of deceased and

people had gathered there, Police, media people and his

relatives visited the house. He enquired with his relatives and

he came to know that his father, mother and his brother were

murdered. He further stated that, on 30.11.2010, police called

him to the police station, enquired him. He further stated that

accused Nos. 1 and 2 were working in his house as maid. He

saw accused Nos.3 and 4 in the police station and police

showed accused Nos.1 to 4, who committed murder of his

father, mother and brother. He also identified seven sarees,

silver lamp, suitcase, mangalya chain, wall clock, golden bangle

as per MOs.1 to 31 and those articles belongs to his parents

and he expressed his inability to state that he do not know as

to whom MO.28 suitcase belongs to.

54. PW33-Malathi, the Scientific Officer, FSL, Madiwala,

Bengaluru, has stated that on 04.06.2009, she received 17

articles for clinical examination. Accordingly, she conducted

examination and found that:

"1. Presence of blood was detected in Article Nos.1, 3, 10 and

- 32 -

2. Presence of blood was not detected in Article Nos.2, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25 and 26

3. The blood stains in item 3 are stained with 'AB' group blood determined by adopting absorption and elution method.

4. Blood in items 7, 16 and 24 were disintegrated, hence, their origin could not be determined.

5. The blood grouping of the blood stains in items 1, 10 and 19 could not be determined as the results of the test were inconclusive.

6. Report on hairs could not be furnished since article Nos.9, 18 and 26 sent by the IO were cut hairs presence of skin was not detected in items 8, 17 and 25."

55. In this case, the prosecution contended that it has

relied upon the circumstantial evidence and hence, it has to

prove that the accused persons committed the murder of

deceased persons and none else. Where a case rests squarely

on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be

justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances

are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

The question of motive of the accused assumes importance in

the case based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, the

prosecution has to prove the following circumstances:

1. Homicidal death of deceased, namely Purshotham Lal Sachidev, Deepak Sachidev and Rita Sachidev;

2. Motive;

- 33 -

3. Criminal Conspiracy;

4. Last seen theory;

5. Recovery of gold and other articles;

6. Conduct of the accused persons, and

7. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act;

56. In order to prove the 'homicidal death' of the

deceased, namely Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Deepak Sachidev

and Rita Sachidev, the prosecution examined PW1, who saw

the dead body of the deceased persons for the first time in the

house of the deceased situated at R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. He

has stated that soon after the incident, he came to the house,

opened the door of the house and saw the dead body of

deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Deepak Sachidev and Rita

Sachidev, in the house. PW2-Dr. Rajkumar, relative of the

deceased also, stated that he saw the dead body of the

deceased persons in the house of the deceased. PW3-

Raghuveer Rajkumar, relative of the deceased, and PW32-

Anurag Sachidev, adopted son of the deceased Purushotham

Lal Sachidev and Rita Sachidev, have stated that they saw the

dead body of the deceased persons in the house of the

deceased. In order to support the oral testimonies of these

- 34 -

witnesses, the prosecution examined PW4-Anand, in whose

presence, the inquest mahazar was conducted on the dead

body of deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev. PW7-Vasanth

Kumar has stated that the Police conducted inquest mahazar as

per Ex.P6 on the dead body of Deepak Sachidev and PW9-

Chanchal Pahava has stated that the Police have conducted

inquest mahazar as per Ex.P7 in his presence on the dead body

of Rita Sachidev.

57. Further, Dr. Nagaraj-PW21, who conducted post-

mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Deepak

Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and Purushotham Lal Sachidev, has

stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the

dead body of the deceased persons. The Doctor has noted the

external injury on the dead body of Deepak Sachidev, and

opined that death was due to respiratory failure consequent to

the ligature strangulation. The material said to be used is

NOKIA mobile charger wire.

58. Further, the doctor also conducted Post Mortem

Examination on the dead body of Rita Sachidev and opined that

death was due to respiratory failure consequent to the ligature

strangulation. The material said to be used is two pin plug wire.

- 35 -

59. Further, the doctor also conducted Post Mortem

Examination on the dead body of Purushotham Lal Sachidev

and opined that death was due to respiratory failure

consequent to the ligature strangulation. The material said to

be used is maroon colour dupatta with multi colour design.

Hence, the doctor issued Post Mortem Examination Report as

per Exs.P41 to P43. It is further evidence of PW21 doctor that

on the request of Investigating Officer, he examined the

material objects, i.e., the two pin plug wire, Duppatta and

Nokia Mobile Charger wire and opined that death could be

caused by strangulation with the help of the plastic wires and

Duppatta which were found on the dead body of accused

persons.

60. The overall evidence of PW21-Dr.Nagaraj and the

contents of Exs.P41 to P43 post-mortem examination reports

revealed that the cause of death of deceased was due to

asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hence, as per the oral

evidence of Doctor, who conducted the autopsy and the

evidence of inquest mahazar witnesses and PW1 to PW3 and

PW32, who are relatives of the deceased, who saw the dead

body of the deceased persons goes to show that deceased

Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Deepak Sachidev and Rita Sachidev

- 36 -

died due to strangulation. Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 to

PW3, PW32 and PW21 is corroborated by medical evidence as

to the cause of death of deceased. Hence, the homicidal death

of Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Deepak Sachidev and Rita

Sachidev stands proved.

61. The second ground on which the prosecution has

placed reliance is the 'motive'. So far as motive is concerned,

where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the

inference of guilt can be justified, only when all the

incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be

incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The question of

motive of the accused assumes importance in the case based

on circumstantial evidence. Onus is on the prosecution to prove

that the chain is complete, whereas in this case, it is the

specific case of the prosecution that the accused persons were

working as maid in the house of deceased persons and

portraying as innocent persons in their family, they have taken

undue advantage of the innocence of the deceased persons,

they hatched a plan with accused Nos.3 and 4 to rob the gold

and silver articles from their house.

- 37 -

62. In order to establish the motive aspect, it has come in

the evidence that PW32-Anurag Sachidev, the adopted son of

deceased persons, who has stated that accused Nos.1 and 2

were working in the house of deceased persons as house maid.

The voluntary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer

clearly reveals that accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a criminal

conspiracy to eliminate deceased persons with accused Nos.3

and 4. PW1 and 32 also clearly stated that accused Nos.1 and

2 were working as house maid in the house of deceased

persons. Thus, soon after the incident, accused Nos.1 and 2

were arrested by the police and they have stated that after

their arrest, the Investigating Officer recorded their confession

statements and they confessed that, they have murdered 3

persons in the house of deceased by strangulating with two pin

plug wire, Duppatta and Nokia Mobile Charger wire. In fact,

these factual aspects are not disputed in defence.

63. Further, PWs.1 and 32, the relatives of deceased,

have narrated the details as to how accused Nos.1 and 2 came

into contact with the deceased persons, how accused Nos.1 and

2 made the deceased to believe them. It was stated by them

that deceased persons were treated by accused Nos.1 and 2 as

their family members. It has also come in the evidence that,

- 38 -

the son of deceased Purushotham Lal Sachidev and Rita

Sachidev was physically challenged and hence they adopted

PW32-Anurag Sachidev as their second son, who was addicted

to alcohol. Therefore, taking undue advantage of the innocence

of the deceased persons, they hatched a criminal conspiracy

with accused Nos.3 and 4. Hence, they robbed the golden

ornaments soon after the murder of deceased persons.

64. From the perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW32 and

the investigating officer, it clearly establishes that the accused

persons had a clear opportunity to execute their motive. They

acquainted with deceased persons and they committed murder

by strangulation with the mobile charger and robbed the gold

ornaments, seven sarees and silver lamps and other valuable

things of the deceased persons. It shows that the motive of the

accused persons was to make wrongful gain by robbing the

valuables of the deceased persons. As such the evidence on

record would clearly establish the fact that the accused with an

intention to rob, created an opportunity, strangulated the

deceased persons with mobile charger and committed murder.

Therefore, the motive aspect adds a link as one of the

circumstances in the prosecution case.

- 39 -

65. Here, the charge is against accused Nos.1 to 4

relating to criminal conspiracy under section 120B of IPC. In

several decisions, it is held that 'it is difficult to prove offence

of criminal conspiracy by direct evidence. In other words,

hatching of conspiracy is done in secrecy. Prosecution is

required to establish conspiracy by indirect evidence also i.e.,

by other circumstances.

66. In the present case, there is no direct or indirect

evidence before the Court in respect of the criminal conspiracy

of accused Nos.1 to 4 and on the basis of the said conspiracy,

the robbery and murder has been committed. On 27.11.2010,

the police visited the scene of offence at the instance of

accused persons, where they hatched a plan to commit

robbery. It was supported by independent witness PW13.

67. The fourth ground on which the prosecution has

placed its evidence is the 'last seen theory'. It is to be noted

that PW32-Anurag Sachidev, the adopted son of Purushotham

Lal Sachidev and Rita Sachidev, has stated that accused Nos.1

and 2 both were working as house maid in the house of

deceased persons and he has witnessed that accused Nos.1 and

2 were last seen in the company of the deceased persons prior

- 40 -

to their death. The last seen theory comes into play where the

time gap between the point of time when the accused and the

deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased were

found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than

the accused persons being the author of the crime becomes

impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively

establish that the deceased persons were last seen with

accused Nos.1 and 2, when there is a long gap and possibility

of other person coming in between exists.

68. In order to prove the last seen theory, the

prosecution examined PW8-Vijay Kumar, the paper supplier,

who saw accused Nos.1 and 2 in the house of deceased prior to

the incident and 3 more persons standing in front of the house.

Further, PW32 also stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were

working in the house of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead

body of deceased persons were found in the house. When

PW32 tried to contact the deceased persons, their phone was

switched off and they were not lifting his phone. Therefore,

after 2 days of the incident, he informed PW.1. Accordingly, he

visited the house of deceased persons along with PW32. It

shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the company of

deceased persons prior to the incident and thereafter accused

- 41 -

Nos.1 and 2 fled away by locking the door of the house of

deceased persons and did not return for almost 20 months.

69. Thus, in our opinion, the statement made by PWs.1,

8 and 32 and the evidence of Investigating Officer clearly

establishes that naturally accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the

company of deceased in the house. The surrounding

circumstances would go to show that deceased and accused

Nos.1 and 2 were together in R.T.Nagar house. The learned

counsel for the accused persons though contended that

absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused and

the deceased were together when they were residing in the

R.T.Nagar house on the day of the incident, yet, we find from

the evidence of PWs.14 and 15, who are none other than the

cousins of accused No.1, who have clearly stated that prior to

the incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 were working in the said

house. Thus, these circumstances clearly corroborate the

evidence of PW1, PW8 and PW32 that the deceased and

accused were together in the house. The circumstances brought

out in the evidence lead to the inference that on the pretext of

innocent house maids in the house and taking undue advantage

of the situation, accused No.1 and 2 in connivance with accused

Nos.3 and 4 committed the murder of deceased persons.

- 42 -

70. The aforesaid conclusion gets fortified from the

evidence of the above witnesses, which clearly establishes that

as on the date of incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 were staying in

the house of deceased persons. Nothing has been brought out

in the cross-examination to suggest that they had any motive

to depose against the accused or to falsely implicate them.

From the perusal of evidence of PW1, PW8 and PW32, it

appears that the accused and the deceased persons were in the

house together and soon after the incident, the accused left the

house of deceased persons by locking the door and seven silk

sarees, gold articles and silver articles were missing. We do not

find anything unusual in the evidence of these witnesses as to

the deceased persons last seen in the company of accused

Nos.1 and 2. Further, considering the evidence of these

witnesses, as a whole, coupled with other circumstances, as

discussed above, would go to show that the prosecution has

convincingly established the fact that the accused and deceased

were found together in the house of deceased persons.

71. So far as recovery of gold and other articles is

concerned, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW10,

PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15, PW17, PW18 and PW30. PW10-

Kunnaram, the pawn broker, has stated that the police have

- 43 -

seized bangles from his pawn shop, as accused No.3 sold one

gold bangle. Hence, the same was seized under Ex.P36, seizure

panchanama.

72. PW11-Manohara, a witness to Ex.P36, has stated

that, accused No.3 was under the custody of police, who took

PW10, himself and the police officer to the shop of PW10, Pawn

Broker, where accused No.3 had sold golden bangle. Hence, the

police conducted Amanath panchanamma vide Ex.P36 and

seized golden bangle. Further, PW10-Ashwak Pasha, has

stated that the Investigating Officer called him to be a pancha.

At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the custody of

police. At the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, they seized

seven silk sarees, silver lamp, and golden chain under Ex.P37.

PW14-Kalpana Sardar, who is none other than cousin of

accused No.1 has stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 both came

to her house and they kept one bag/suitcase. After 20 months,

soon after arrest of accused Nos. 1 and 2, they came along

with police and they showed a bag containing seven silk sarees,

silver lamp, and gold chain. Thus, the police conducted seizure

panchanama and seized those articles in their presence.

- 44 -

73. PW15-Anjali Sardar, the sister of PW14 and relative of

accused No.1, has reiterated the oral testimony of PW14 and

corroborated her testimony and she categorically states that

police have seized seven silk sarees, silver lamp and gold chain

at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. The articles were kept

in the bag in the house of PW14.

74. PW17-Janardana Shetty, owner of jewellery shop, has

stated that accused No.4 came to his shop and sold one gold

bangle. On 28.11.2010, accused No.4 and the police officer

came to his shop and asked for the gold bangle. Accused No. 4

showed the said gold bangle. Hence, the police seized the gold

bangle under Ex.P38 Amanath panchanama. PW18-Taushif

Pasha, reiterated the oral testimony of PW12 and stated that he

also accompanied the police officer at the time of conducting

Ex.P37 seizure panchanama. At that time, accused Nos. 1 and

2 showed the house of PW14 Kalpana Sardar, where they had

kept a bag/suitcase containing seven silk sarees, golden

bangle, and silver lamps. Hence, the police seized these

articles under Exs. P37 and P38 seizure panchanama.

75. PW30-Poovaiah, the Police Inspector and

Investigating Officer, has stated that soon after the incident,

- 45 -

accused Nos.1 and 2 fled to West Bengal. They were traced and

brought to Bengaluru, arrested them, recorded their voluntary

statement and as per their voluntary statement, they disclosed

that accused Nos.3 and 4 are also involved in this case. They

conspired together and committed murder of deceased

Purushotham Lal Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and Deepak @ Munna

and they robbed gold articles, silver articles and other valuable

materials from the house of the deceased persons. Hence, as

per the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, they took

the Police to the house of PW14-Kalpana Sardar, who is none

other than cousin of accused No.1, where they showed a bag

containing seven silk sarees, silver lamps and gold bangle.

Hence, he seized those articles under Ex.P37 Amanath

panchanama. PW30 also stated that he seized Gold bangle

which was sold to PW10 by accused No.3. Thus, he seized said

articles under Ex.P36 Amanath panchanama. He also stated

that these articles were identified by PW1 to PW3 and PW32,

who are relatives of deceased persons.

76. From the perusal of the oral testimonies of PWs.10,

11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 30, it appears that the accused

persons voluntarily confessed before the Investigating Officer

while they were in custody, hence it is hit by Section 25 of the

- 46 -

Indian Evidence Act and becomes inadmissible to an extent of

admission of crime. But, their statements are not barred by

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to other

information disclosed by them in that statements and the same

is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. As

per the disclosure statements, the Investigating Officer

discovered the facts pursuant to disclosure made by the

accused persons and pursuant to their statements, material

objects were discovered and recovered from the pawn broker

shops and the house of PW14 respectively. This strengthens

the prosecution case and it is one of the strong circumstances

to corroborate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It shows

that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that on

15.02.2009, accused Nos.1 and 2 while working as house maid

in the house of deceased persons, they conspired together with

accused Nos.3 and 4 alongwith absconding accused No.5,

committed murder and robbed the above golden and silver

articles and silk sarees. The body of the deceased were found

in the house of the deceased, and the accused persons locked

the said house from outside and they fled away and soon after

their arrest, these gold and silver articles and sarees were

recovered at their instance, pursuant to the confession

- 47 -

statements made by the accused persons. Therefore, the

recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused

persons is one of the strong circumstances to establish the guilt

of the accused persons.

77. In this regard, the only inference that can be drawn is

that the accused persons have murdered the deceased persons

to accomplish their motive and robbed the golden and silver

articles, seven silk sarees, and a wall clock. Later, accused

Nos.1 and 2 were arrested after 20 months from the date of

incident by the police inspector at West Bengal. Further, the

robbed articles belonged to the deceased persons were seized

from the possession of the accused persons and those articles

were identified by PW1 and PW32, who are relatives of the

deceased persons.

78. So far as 'conduct of the accused' is concerned, as

per the case of prosecution, accused No.2 was working as

house maid in the house of deceased persons. Accused No.1 is

her husband. They made criminal conspiracy with accused

Nos.3 and 4 alongwith absconding accused No.5, committed

murder of deceased persons by taking undue advantage of the

situation that deceased Deepak @ Munna was physically

- 48 -

challenged person and the adopted son of deceased

Purushottam Lal Sachidev and Rita Sachidev i.e., PW32-Anurag

Sachidev was an alcoholic, drug addict and addicted to bad

vices. Therefore, they committed murder by strangulation and

they committed robbery and fled to West Bengal. From the

perusal of the evidence on record, it would clearly show that

soon after the incident, they fled away and they were

frequently changing their address and fortunately accused

Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in West Bengal State, and they were

brought to Bengaluru, the investigating Officer enquired them,

recorded their voluntary statement. Pursuant to their voluntary

statements, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also traced and their

statements were also recorded and pursuant to their voluntary

statements, the Investigating Officer seized gold, silver articles

and 7 sarees under Exs.P36, 37, 38 and 39. Therefore, the

antecedents of accused clearly establish that soon after the

commission of murder of the deceased persons, they robbed

the aforesaid articles. The conduct of accused persons clearly

establishes from the evidence of PW14 and PW15, who are

none other than cousins of accused No.1 that soon after the

incident, they brought two bags containing mangalya chain,

sarees and silver lamps. The defence has not established any

- 49 -

animosity of PW14 and PW15 with accused Nos.1 and 2. It

shows that their intention, motive, mens rea to rob the

belongings of the deceased persons after committing their

murder. If at all they were not responsible for the death of the

deceased, then there was no occasion for accused Nos.1 and 2

to disappear from the house of deceased persons. The

investigating officer also seized the robbed articles soon after

their arrest. The fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 had absconded

from the scene of occurrence is an additional chain of

circumstance, which further strengthens the case of the

prosecution.

79. So far as invoking Section 106 of the Indian

Evidence Act, the prosecution must first establish that there

was any fact within the special knowledge of the accused

persons. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the accused

being the master of the crime alone knows the circumstances

which lead to death. This Section mandates that facts that are

within the exclusive knowledge of accused persons shall be

explained by them. Non explanation of incriminating

circumstances leads to an inference that the accused and the

accused alone are the author of the crime. Once the

prosecution is able to establish that at the relevant time,

- 50 -

accused No.2 was working as house maid in the house of

deceased persons and accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing in the

outhouse of the deceased persons, they conspired together

with accused Nos.3 and 4 alongwith absconding accused No.5

to eliminate the deceased persons and subsequently the

deceased persons were strangulated, the burden of proof would

lie upon the accused persons to show that under what

circumstances, the deceased persons were done to death.

80. Further, if a person is last seen in the company of the

deceased persons and if the facts convincingly establish as to

their last seen together, the burden of proof would lie upon the

accused persons to show under what circumstances the death

had occurred. Whereas, in this case, the accused persons have

not offered any explanation as to how and when the accused

persons parted with the company of the deceased persons and

their failure to offer reasonable explanation itself provide an

additional link to the chain of circumstances.

81. In this case, accused Nos. 1 and 2 and deceased

persons were in the house and their dead bodies were found

later in the house. Soon after the incident, accused Nos.1 and 2

absconded. This fact was within the knowledge of accused

- 51 -

persons. But the accused persons failed to explain the

circumstances as to how the death of deceased persons

occurred and strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased

persons. PW21-Dr.Nagraj, who conducted post-mortem

examination on the dead body of deceased Deepak Sachidev,

Rita Sachidev and Purshotham Lal Sachidev, vide Exs.P41 to

P43, has opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of

strangulation and the death could be caused by strangulation

with the help of the two pin plug wire, Duppatta and Nokia

Mobile Charger wire. It has already been held that the death of

deceased Deepak Sachidev, Rita Sachidev, Purushottam Lal

Sachidev are homicidal one. The evidence on record also

discloses that the incident had occurred two days prior to the

lodging of the complaint and accused Nos.1 and 2 had

absconded from the house and there is possibility of no person

other than the accused persons to have remained in the contact

with the deceased persons.

82. Except bare denial in their statements under Section

313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons have not offered any

explanation as to how deceased Deepak Sachidev, Rita

Sachidev and Purushottam Lal Sachidev were murdered.

Obviously, this circumstance goes against accused Nos.1 to 4.

- 52 -

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to

presume the existence of any fact which it thinks is likely to

have happened. From the perusal of evidence on record, the

only reasonable inference that could be drawn is that the

accused persons alone committed the murder of deceased

persons.

83. It is now well settled that in a case based on a

circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such

circumstances must be conclusive in nature. There should be

no gap left in the chain of circumstances. Further, the proved

circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of

the guilt of the accused persons and totally inconsistent with

their innocence. The circumstances proved by the prosecution,

in our opinion, form a complete chain unerringly pointing out

the guilt of the accused persons for the murder of the deceased

persons. It is established beyond pale of doubt that the

accused persons committed the murder of deceased persons

with plastic wire, duppata and mobile charger in the house of

deceased persons and they fled away by robbing the gold,

silver and other articles. The circumstance of the deceased

persons last seen in the company of accused persons, as

- 53 -

already discussed above, in the absence of any explanation by

the accused for unnatural death of the deceased would lead to

an inevitable conclusion that the deceased persons were done

to death by the accused persons alone. It is further proved

that the death of the deceased is homicidal due to

strangulation. The manner in which the accused persons

committed the murder of the deceased persons, the place, the

time of incident and sudden disappearance of accused Nos.1

and 2 from the house of the deceased persons are suggestive

of the fact that the accused persons committed murder of

deceased by strangulation and thereafter, escaped from the

house of deceased persons without informing anybody including

PW1 to PW3 and PW32.

84. The circumstances discussed above would clearly

indicate that until the death of deceased persons, they were

found in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 and not found in

the company of any person other than accused Nos.1 and 2.

Therefore, the possibility of any other person strangulating the

deceased persons and causing their death cannot be ruled out.

The recovery of gold and silver ornaments and seven silk

sarees at the instance of accused persons, establishes the fact

that murder of deceased Deepak Sachidev, Rita Sachidev and

- 54 -

Purushottam Lal Sachidev was committed by accused Nos.1 to

4 for gain.

85. The prosecution has proved the modus operandi

adopted by the accused persons which, in our opinion, proves

the conduct of accused persons before and after the

commission of the offence. The articles seized from the

possession of accused establish the fact that those articles

belonged to the deceased persons. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being

house maid working in the house of the deceased persons,

committed murder in connivance with accused Nos.3 and 4

alongwith absconding accused No.5 and robbed their valuables.

Concealing their identity and disguising their person is a clear

proof of the guilty intention and motive of the accused persons.

86. Thus, on overall consideration of all the above facts

and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections, 120B, 201

and 302 of IPC. The trial Court, therefore, was not justified in

acquitting the accused persons for the said offences. Thus, we

find glaring error and infirmity in the findings recorded by the

trial Court.

- 55 -

87. Insofar as sentence is concerned, learned Addl. SPP

vehemently contended that the respondents/accused Nos.1 to

4 and absconding accused No.5 have committed three murders

brutally and robbery. Hence, the facts of the case fall within the

category of rarest of rare case and therefore, a death penalty

can be imposed to the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4.

88. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents

contended that since the chain of circumstances are not at all

completed and the fact that the trial Court acquitted the

accused persons and considering the manner in which the

accused persons committed an offence will not attract the

rarest of rare case.

89. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down in the

Constitution Bench decision in BACHAN SINGH v. STATE OF

PUNJAB, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684 as well as MACHHI

SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in

(1983) 3 SCC 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has

considered the parameters and guidelines in respect of

consideration of a case as rarest of rare case.

90. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mohinder

Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 3 SCC 294, has

- 56 -

held that 'the rarest of the rare case' comes when a convict

would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful

coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal

but may not be in the category of 'the rarest of the rare case'.

There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be

reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue

criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat

to the society.

91. Taking into consideration all these factors, we find

that the present case is not a case wherein it can be held that

imposition of death penalty is the only alternative. Another

reason that weighs from the evidence of the witnesses, it is not

clear that the role attributed to the accused has been similar as

that of the rarest of the rare case, but, in this case, the accused

committed murder of three persons in the house by

strangulation and robbed their belongings.

92. Applying the aforesaid principles as laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh's case

and Machhi Singh's case, it can be seen that, in the present

case, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the house of deceased

persons as maid servant, they made criminal conspiracy with

- 57 -

accused Nos.3 to 5 and accordingly, they committed triple

murder by strangulation with wire, mobile charger and

duppatta and robbed gold, silver and other valuable articles.

The prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances and

as such, the instant case does not fall under rarest of rare case

as enumerated in Bachan Singh's and Machi Singh's cited

supra. We are therefore of the considered view that the act of

accused persons would not fall in the category of rarest of rare

cases.

93. It is seen in recent times, incidents have been

reported where Inter-State migrant, who were engaged for

domestic or construction work, have allegedly been involved in

serious offences such as murder and robbery in the very

premises where they were employed. In many such cases, the

house owners or employers had engaged the workers without

conducting any background verification, identity confirmation,

or registration with the concerned authorities. Some of such

migrant workers frequently committing crimes and fleeing away

and as such, the same have to be streamlined by issuance of

certain guidelines by the State Government. This situation

highlights the urgent need for preventive safeguards through

strict enforcement of existing labour and criminal regulatory

- 58 -

mechanisms. Further, a structured and mandatory police

verification mechanism should be introduced before engaging

workers who reside within private premises, similar to tenant

verification systems, with simplified online registration portals

accessible to the public. At the same time, widespread public

awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social

media platforms should be undertaken to educate citizens

about safe hiring practices. However, while strengthening

preventive mechanisms, it is equally important to ensure that

migrant workers are not stigmatized as a class, since criminal

liability is individual in nature and the constitutional guarantees

under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India protect the

dignity and equality of all persons. Thus, balanced judicial

directions aimed at regulation, awareness, and accountability

without discrimination which would serve the larger interest of

public safety and social justice.

94. In this case, the migrant labours who were from West Bengal came to Bengaluru in search of job, entered the house of deceased persons as maid, they made criminal conspiracy, committed murder of deceased persons (three deaths) and robbed gold, silver and other valuable properties in their house and fled away. They were arrested after twenty months of the incident. Inspite of it, the prosecution was able to secure

- 59 -

accused Nos.1 and 2 from the State of West Bengal and as per their voluntary statement, accused Nos.3 and 4 were secured in Bengaluru. Thus, there was difficulty in tracing and securing the accused persons. In this regard, streamlining of the aforesaid guidelines is very much required. Thus, we hereby direct the State Government to take a call on this issue. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal filed by the appellant-State is allowed.

ii) The Judgment of acquittal dated 29.02.2016 passed

in S.C. No.433 of 2011 by learned LXIV Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru,

is hereby set aside.

iii) Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

iv) Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life for the offence punishable

under Section 120B of IPC and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- each, in default, they shall undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months.