Telangana High Court
Kranthi Kiran Rathod vs The State Of A.P., on 12 June, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
Page 1 of 39
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023,
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014
Between:
Kranthi Kiran Rathod
...Appellant/A-3
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014,
Between:
1. John Abraham
2. Koppisetti Madhavi ...Appellants/A-1 & A-2
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023,
Between:
Kare Pradeep Kumar
...Appellant/A-4
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017,
Between:
The State of Telangana rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
...Appellant/State
VERSUS
1. Kranthi Kiran Rathod
2. Kare Pradeep Kumar ...Respondents/A-3 & A-4
2
COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.06.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023,
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017.
% 12.06.2025
# Between:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014
Between:
Kranthi Kiran Rathod
...Appellant/A-3
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014,
Between:
3. John Abraham
4. Koppisetti Madhavi
...Appellants/A-1 & A-2
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023,
Between:
Kare Pradeep Kumar
...Appellant/A-4
VERSUS
The State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector of Police(SHO),
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
Respondent
4
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017,
Between:
The State of Telangana rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
...Appellant/State
VERSUS
3. Kranthi Kiran Rathod
4. Kare Pradeep Kumar
...Respondents/A-3 & A-4
! Counsel for appellant (s) : Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy
Mr.T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
Smt. B. Prathibha
^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Yasin Mamoon, Additional Public
Prosecutor
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182 of 2014,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 of 2023,
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 of 2017.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)
We have heard Mr. P. Prabhaker Reddy, learned counsel for
Accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014; Mr. T. Pradyumna
Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Accused Nos.2 and
3 in Criminal Appeals Nos.182 of 2014 and 212 of 2014 respectively;
Smt. B. Prathibha, learned counsel for Accused No.4 in Criminal Appeal
No.41 of 2023; and Mr. Syed Yasin Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017.
2. Since all these appeals arise from the same judgment, we propose
to adjudicate them through this common judgment.
3. Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014 has been preferred by Accused
Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused Nos.1 and 2’); Criminal
Appeal No.212 of 2014 has been filed by Accused No.3 (hereinafter
‘Accused No.3’); and Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023 has been filed by
Accused No.4 (hereinafter ‘Accused No.4’). All these appeals challenge
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2014, delivered in
Sessions Case No.486 of 2010 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad.
4. Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017 has been filed by the State
(hereinafter ‘the prosecution’) challenging the same judgment dated
13.01.2014 in Sessions Case No.486 of 2010, to the extent it acquits
6
Accused Nos.3 and 4 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘IPC‘).
5. In the impugned judgment, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a
fine of 10,000/- each. In default of payment, they were to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. Additionally, they were convicted under
Section 380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years
each, along with a fine of 5,000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 120-B read
with Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven
years each, with a fine of 5,000/- each; in default, they were to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted under
Section 411 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years
each, with a fine of 2,000/- each; in default, they were to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months.
6.(a). The prosecution’s case is based on a report/Ex.P-1 lodged by
PW-1, the proprietor of RAK Lodge. According to the report, on
20.08.2009 at around 6:00 p.m., two individuals arrived at the lodge and
booked three rooms–Nos. 201, 203, and 205–under the name “K.
Prasad, son of K. Deraj,” stating that identification would be provided
upon check-in by the Prasad. Around 9:00 p.m., three men, three
women, and two children (a boy and a girl) occupied the rooms.
(b). On 21.08.2009, at approximately 4:00 a.m., three men and one
woman left the lodge claiming they needed to make arrangements for an
additional guest and would return, leaving the rooms locked without
returning the keys. In the intervening night of 21/22.08.2009 at about
7
3:00 a.m., following the instructions of PW-1, a room boy peered through
the ventilator of Room No.205 and observed a woman lying motionless
with blood from the nose on the bed. On information PW-1 also looked
through the ventilator and saw the same.
(c). Suspecting foul play, PW-1 questioned his staff and then
proceeded to the police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Gopalapuram, subsequently in the presence and as per the directions of
the police opened Rooms 201, 203, and 205 using duplicate keys. Inside
Room 201, he discovered the body of a male, approximately 40 years
old. In Room 203, two suitcases were found. In Room 205, the bodies of
a woman (around 35 years old) and two children were found on the bed,
covered in blood.
(d). Then he/PW-1 presented the report/Ex.P-1, whereupon Crime
No.310 of 2009 was registered, and an investigation was initiated and on
completion, a charge sheet was filed. The investigation revealed that
Deceased No.2–Kadali Kasi Naga Sree Lakshmi Vara Prasad @ K.L.
Vara Prasad @ Prasad (hereinafter ‘Deceased No.2’)–was an engineer
employed in Dubai. He had married Smt. Kadali Vijayalaxmi (Deceased
No.1) in 1986, and their children were Kadali Khethan (Deceased No.3)
and Kadali Kavitha (Deceased No.4). The family frequently visited
relatives in East and West Godavari Districts and in Visakhapatnam.
(e). Accused No.2, K. Madhavi, was the niece of Deceased No.1. In
2005, while working as an ICICI Bank employee, she persuaded
Deceased No.2 to invest with the bank promising a good maturity return.
Over time, she further lured Deceased No.2 into investing additional
sums under various pretenses. Trusting her, Deceased No.2 made
substantial deposits into her bank account for investment on his behalf.
8
(f). However, Accused No.2, driven by greed and in collusion with her
boyfriend, Accused No.1, misappropriated the funds without making any
actual investments. In the last week of 2009, Deceased No.2 returned to
India with his family and demanded that Accused No.2 arrange the
withdrawal of the investments before his return to Dubai. Unable to return
the funds, Accused No.2 fabricated a story claiming that 2.25 lakhs was
required to close the insurance portfolio. This amount was arranged by
Deceased No.2 through his sister/PW-8 and handed over on 03.08.2009.
(g). Subsequently, Accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired to eliminate the entire
family before they returned to Dubai. Initially, the deceased family’s travel
plans were set for 16.08.2009 but were later rescheduled to 21.08.2009.
On 18.08.2009, they departed from Tadepalligudem and arrived in
Hyderabad on 19.08.2009, where they checked into Park Lane Hotel,
Secunderabad.
(h). Accused No.2 informed the family that the bank officer would meet
them in Hyderabad and to personally deliver the cheque. Following their
plan, Accused No.4 procured a bottle of ethyl alcohol from the college
laboratory. On 19.08.2009, Accused Nos.1 to 4 boarded the
Visakhapatnam Express, arrived in Secunderabad on 20.08.2009, and
booked rooms 420/1125 and 425/108 at Sithara Lodge. Later, they
visited the deceased family at Park Lane Hotel and assured them that the
insurance cheque of Rs.80 lakhs would be delivered that night.
(i). Meanwhile, Accused Nos.1 and 3 booked Rooms 201, 203, and
205 at RAK Lodge under false identities. Accused No.1 also procured
liquor, chilli powder and a scarf (chunni). Accused No.2 convinced the
victims to relocate there, claiming it was closer to the airport and the
agent would deliver the cheque there. The family moved to RAK Lodge
9
by 9:00 p.m., with Deceased Nos.1 to 4 occupying Room 201, Accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Room 203, and Accused Nos.3 and 4 in Room 205.
(j). Later, Accused No.1 obtained a blank cheque from PW-4, forged it
for Rs.80 lakhs, and gave it to Deceased No.2, impersonating it as the
promised cheque through Accused No.3, who posed as the agent.
Deceived, Deceased No.2 accepted it. The accused No.1 invited
Deceased No.2 to Room 205 for a drink. Accused No.4 offered him an
ethyl alcohol-laced drink, and once he was intoxicated, Accused Nos.1 to
4 strangled him using the scarf. Following his murder, Accused No.1
retrieved and destroyed the cheque and hid the body of Deceased No.2
under the cot in Room 205 and they proceeded to kill the remaining
family members.
(k). Accused No.3 went to Room 201, entered it, and, along with
Accused No.1, strangled Deceased No.1. Accused No.3 murdered
Deceased No.3, while Accused No.1 used the scarf to kill Deceased
No.4.
(l) They looted jewellery worth Rs.3.25 lakhs, along with cash,
passports, and mobile phones belonging to Deceased Nos.1 and 2 and
sprinkled chili powder throughout the room to obscure traces, and the
liquor bottles and glasses in Room 205 were cleaned. The accused then
locked the door and left the lodge around 4:00 a.m.
7. In further investigation, basing on the call details between the cell
phones of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 with yet to register SIM cards, with the
help of task force, the accused No.3 was apprehended on 25.8.2009 in
Vizag. In the meantime, on 26.08.2009 at about 9:00 a.m., upon credible
information about the involvement of accused in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and they
are heading to Nizamabad, native place of the accused No.3 and are
waiting at Jubilee bus station, the police in the presence of mediators,
10
apprehended them and recorded their voluntary statements of admission
and on their production recovered stolen articles of the deceased Nos.1
and 2 were seized from them. From accused No.3, apart from recording
his statement, Rs.2000/- cash was seized from him. After judicial
remand, the accused were taken to police custody and on inquiry, they
made further confessional statements. Where after the accused, led the
police Vizag and on showing, the belongings of the deceased were
seized at the instance of accused Nos. 1,3 and 4. Thereafter test
identification parade was conducted in the presence of judicial
magistrates. The writing of the accused No.3 was forwarded for
comparison along with the lodge register and signatures of accused No.3
obtained by the investigating officer were sent to forensic science
laboratory (FSL). The travel data of the accused was secured from the
railway authorities to show that the accused travelled in Vishakha
express on 19.8.2009 in S5 sleeper coach. Therefore, concluding that all
the accused conspired and took part in committing murders to avoid the
repayment, the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence
under sections 120-B, 302 and 380 of IPC.
8. Upon committal from the territorial jurisdiction, the Metropolitan
Sessions Judge took cognizance of the matter. After examining the
accused, who pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. During the trial,
the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 45, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-116,
and produced Material Objects (M.Os) 1 to 104.
9. After a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and materials
on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had
proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and
accordingly recorded convictions and imposed sentences as noted
earlier.
11
10. The learned counsel for the accused pleaded that the convictions
recorded by the learned trial Court are vitiated by multiple legal and
factual infirmities. The findings are based on a misappreciation of
evidence, disregard of procedural safeguards, and reliance on inherently
unreliable testimony. The primary contention is that the trial Court failed
to properly evaluate the credibility and reliability of the prosecution’s
witnesses. The testimonies suffer from material inconsistencies and
suggestive bias.
Most notably, the identity of the accused was not conclusively
established. A key prosecution witness described seeing “two men and
two women” leaving the lodge where the deceased persons were last
seen, which directly contradicts the prosecution’s case that three men
and one woman–namely Accused Nos. 1 to 4–were present. This
discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution’s narrative and casts
serious doubt on the alleged involvement of all four accused.
The Test Identification Parade (TIP), a critical component of the
investigation, suffers from significant procedural lapses, such as, an
unreasonable lapse of time following the incident, which undermines the
reliability of the witness identification. Further, the identification of
Accused No. 2 by the witnesses ought to have been approached with
greater scrutiny. Her physical condition–being pregnant at the relevant
time–rendered her visually distinctive. The trial court’s reasoning that
her pregnancy was not medically corroborated, and that the accused
failed to lead evidence to prove the same, is misplaced. The burden of
proof lay with the prosecution to neutralize such distinguishing features,
particularly when these features may have unduly influenced the
witnesses.
12
Prosecution witnesses claimed they were initially unable to identify
the accused due to threats and intimidation. However, these allegations
are wholly unsubstantiated and were not raised at the time of the TIP,
which was conducted under judicial supervision. This omission
diminishes the credibility of the purported fear and supports the inference
of afterthought. The trial court erred in placing significant reliance on in-
court identifications made over two years after the incident. Such belated
identification, unaccompanied by prior confirmation through a properly
conducted TIP, is devoid of probative value and ought to have been
excluded from consideration.
It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish
even a prima facie case of conspiracy among the accused. Notably,
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted of conspiracy charges based on
the same factual matrix. The reasoning that led to their acquittal should
logically and legally extend to the other co-accused, given the
indistinguishable nature of the allegations and evidence against them.
There were serious lapses in the collection and handling of
evidence, which were disregarded by the trial court, prominently, the
items allegedly recovered from the accused are highly doubtful. There is
a strong likelihood that these materials were planted or fabricated to
falsely implicate the accused. The trial court failed to critically examine
this possibility.
Key documentary evidence, such as the lodge registers (Exhibits
P2 & P3) and bank documents were neither properly proved nor
subjected to authentication. The lack of evidentiary linkage between
these exhibits and the alleged acts of the accused renders the
circumstantial evidence weak and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
13
The prosecution failed to establish that these items belonged to the
deceased. Reliance was erroneously placed on the testimony of PW6
and PW7 in concluding this fact. The trial court failed to account for
numerous material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution’s
case, thereby weakening the continuity of the chain of circumstantial
evidence.
Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution’s case is riddled with
inconsistencies, procedural violations, and uncorroborated claims. The
conviction of the appellants rests on a tenuous evidentiary foundation
and violates settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the
presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appellants pray that the impugned judgment be
set aside, the convictions be quashed, and all the appellants be acquitted
of the charges framed against them.
11. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the trial
Court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and
rendered a well-reasoned judgment convicting the accused. However,
the decision to limit the conviction and sentence against Accused Nos. 3
and 4, while upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, is flawed
and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court.
It is submitted that all four accused, acting in concert, traveled
covertly to Hyderabad and procured accommodation under false
identities at Sitara Lodge (as per Exhibit P51), which is proximate to the
scene of the crime. The prosecution established their presence through
multiple strands of corroborated evidence, particularly the prosecution
witnesses/PW-2 and PW-3 consistently testified that Accused Nos. 3 and
4 were present at the lodge and that three rooms were booked in their
14
names. These facts are substantiated by entries in the lodge register
(Exhibit P2). The authorship of the register entries was confirmed through
expert handwriting analysis by PW-29, whose report (Exhibit P60)
conclusively established that Accused No. 3 made the relevant entries,
thereby directly linking him to the booking and the crime scene. The PW-
3 further testified that all four accused (Nos. 1 to 4) occupied the rooms
alongside the deceased individuals. No other persons were seen in the
rooms during the relevant period, reinforcing the prosecution’s case of
exclusive presence and opportunity.
The behavior of the accused at approximately 4:00 AM in the
morning, following the offense, all four accused vacated the lodge
together. This fact is corroborated by both PW-3 (lodge staff) and PW-9
(cab driver), who independently confirmed their coordinated departure.
During the Test Identification Parade (TIP), Accused Nos. 2 and 4
were duly identified by the witnesses. Although these witnesses later
failed to confirm the identification in court, such reluctance was rightly
attributed by the Trial Court to intimidation and fear, especially
considering the lapse of time and surrounding circumstances. The Trial
Court correctly took judicial notice of the effect of such duress on witness
testimony.
The prosecution further relies on the recovery of valuable
ornaments and belongings of the deceased were recovered from the
possession of Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4, as evidenced by the recovery
and seizure reports (Exhibits P40 to P43 and P75, P78, and P79). The
recoveries, the presence of the accused at the lodge and their
subsequent coordinated actions are establishing to a shared plan and a
premeditated conspiracy to commit the crime. In light of these facts, any
attempt to differentiate the culpability of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 from that
15
of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is untenable. All four acted in furtherance of a
common intention and must be held equally liable.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the
prosecution has successfully established the chain of circumstances
necessary to secure conviction under well-settled principles of
circumstantial evidence by proving the presence of the accused with the
deceased during the critical hours, coupled with their unexplained
departure and subsequent recovery of incriminating material, form a
cogent and unbroken chain pointing unerringly to their guilt. Hence, the
trial court’s acceptance of the prosecution case is supported by a
reasoned appreciation of facts and law. Minor discrepancies or
contradictions in witness testimony, which are natural in such cases, do
not undermine the core narrative and are insufficient to disturb the
findings of guilt.
In view of the overwhelming evidence, the prosecution respectfully
prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 4; and the
prosecution’s appeal against the partial conviction and sentence of the
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 be allowed, and they be convicted and sentenced
on par with Accused Nos. 1 and 2, as all accused were jointly and
equally complicit in the crime.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels and perused the record.
13. In the rival pleadings the points arise for determination are,
(a) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges under sections 302,380
of IPC against the accused Nos. 1 and 2; and under 120 B r/w 302 and 411 of IPC
against the accused Nos. 3 and 4, beyond reasonable doubt?
(b) Whether conviction and sentence imposed against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 is
proper and sustainable ?
16
(c) Whether the impugned judgment of convictions and sentences recorded
against the accused are justifiable in the facts and law?
14. Homicidal Death of Deceased No.s. 1 to 4:
The testimony of PW-1, the owner of RAK Royal Lodge, reveals
that the bodies of two children and a woman were found in Room No.
205, while the body of a male was discovered in Room No. 201. PW-2,
the then Manager(T. Stephen), and PW-3, a room boy, corroborated the
discovery of the bodies in those rooms. PW-6, the elder sister of
deceased Vijayalaxmi (Deceased No. 1), identified the deceased as her
sister Vijayalaxmi (Deceased No. 1), her husband K.L.V. Prasad
(Deceased No. 2), and their children Khethan and Kavitha (Deceased
Nos. 3 and 4).
PW-20 (A. Babu Rao), the mediator for the scene observation
report, testified that on 22.08.2009 at around 6:30 a.m., the police
inspected Rooms 205, 203, and 201 in RAK Lodge. The scene was
documented in Exhibit P-38, and Material Objects M.Os. 4 to 46 were
collected. PWs. 11 and 12, mediators for the inquest, confirmed that
inquest proceedings were conducted over the bodies of one male, one
female, and two children as per Exhibits P-6 to P-8, and they opined that
the deaths appeared to have been caused by strangulation.
PWs. 33 and 35, who conducted the post-mortems on the
deceased, confirmed in their reports (Exhibits P-62 to P-65) that the
cause of death for Deceased Nos. 1, 3, and 4 was asphyxia due to
ligature strangulation. In the case of Deceased No. 2, they opined that
death resulted from strangulation in conjunction with alcohol
consumption.
17
A cumulative reading of the above evidence establishes that the
deaths of Deceased Nos. 1 to 4 were homicidal in nature and occurred in
RAK Lodge, in Rooms 205 and 201.
15. Involvement of the accused in the offence:
The prosecution’s case is resting on circumstantial evidence. The
jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence is crystallized in the Supreme
Court’s decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:
AIR 1984 SC 1622, which laid down five cardinal principles (known as
the Panchsheel) for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence:
(i) Each circumstance must be firmly established.
(ii) All facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt.
(iii) Circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain.
(iv) Such chain must exclude any possible theory of innocence.
(v) There must be a high degree of moral certainty and no scope for conjecture.
In Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 INSC 678
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution
shall establish the complete chain of circumstantial evidence that
unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused. The Court reiterated the
five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) for cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence
In John Anthonisamy @ John v. State : 2023 INSC 542
The Supreme Court held that based on strong circumstantial
evidence, even though there was no direct eyewitness or definitive
medical opinion on the cause of death. The Court highlighted that a chain
18
of strong circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
These judgments reinforce the principle that while circumstantial
evidence can form the basis for conviction, it must be cogent, consistent,
and form an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of the accused’s
guilt.
16. Further, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution, which
must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to
the benefit of doubt where the circumstantial chain is incomplete or
compatible with innocence. This principle reaffirms the presumption of
innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. In the light of above settled propositions the evidence on the record
needs examination. The prosecution’s specific case is that in August
2009, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 at
their residence to murder the entire family (Deceased Nos. 1 to 4) to
avoid paying out the investment returns taken from the Deceased No. 2
in the name of investments by the Accused No.2. In furtherance of this
conspiracy, the accused on the pretext that the person concerned would
hand over the cheque at the RAK lodge, made them to shift to that lodge,
during the night of 20/21.08.2009.
18. Prosecution has presented the presence and movements of the
accused and deceased in the lodge at relevant period, to prove the last
seen theory.
The lodge manager/PW-2 testified that Accused Nos. 3 and 4
arrived at the lodge on 20.08.2009 and booked Rooms 201, 203, and
205, paying an advance amount of Rs.2,000. When asked to furnish
identification, they stated that a person named K. Prasad, who would be
19
arriving shortly, would provide the required proof. PW-2 further identified
room attendants, including PW-3 (Santhosh Kumar Das @ Suraj),
Kunaldas, Shekhar @ Bappi, and Deepak, as part of the lodge staff.
Further, on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd August 2009, the son
of PW-1 (Gaffar) approached and brought him to the lodge, where PW-1
inquired about the occupants of the rooms. He/PW-2 informed PW-1 that
the rooms had been booked by Accused Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of K.
Prasad and that he was informed of the discovery of dead bodies in
Rooms 201 and 205. Subsequently, PW-1 reported the matter to the
police.
19. PW-3, one of the room boys, corroborated PW-2’s testimony. He
stated that at approximately 6:00 PM on 20.08.2009, Accused Nos. 3 and
4 arrived at the lodge and booked three rooms, paying Rs.2,000/- in
advance. When identification was requested, they responded that one K.
Prasad (later identified as Deceased No. 2) would provide it. PW-3
confirmed that Accused No. 3 made entries in the lodge register (Exhibits
P-2 and P-3). After about an hour and a half, PW-2 left the premises.
Around 9:00 PM, all four accused (Nos. 1 to 4) and the four deceased
persons (Nos. 1 to 4) arrived together at the lodge. PW-3 and another
room boy, Kunal Das, assisted in carrying their luggage to the respective
rooms and handed over the room keys (Material Objects 1 to 3). PW-3
further testified that Accused No. 1 later came downstairs, gave him
Rs.50/- to purchase water bottles, and upon returning with two Kinley
bottles, he handed over the bottles along with Rs.20/- change.
At approximately 4:00 AM on 21.08.2009, the four accused
requested that the lodge shutters be opened so they could go to the
railway station, claiming they needed to pick up guests. PW-3 informed
them that the shutters could not be opened until morning, but the
20
accused insisted their guests were waiting. Notably, they left without any
luggage and did not return thereafter.
Later, during the night of 21st/22nd August 2009, PW-1 asked
him/PW-3 to check the occupancy status of the rooms. Upon inspection,
PW-3 reported that Rooms 201, 203, and 205 were locked from the
outside. At PW-1’s instruction, he checked for luggage presence. Peering
through the ventilator of Room 205, PW-3 saw a woman’s body lying on
the bed with visible bleeding from the nose. He immediately informed
PW-1, who in turn called his son Gaffar to summon PW-2.
Upon PW-2’s arrival, he confirmed the booking details and
subsequently accompanied PW-1 to the police station. The police
returned to the scene and, in their presence, the rooms were opened
using duplicate keys. Inside Room 205, three dead bodies were found,
and another male body was discovered in Room 201. Room 203
contained luggage. PW-3 identified Material Objects 4 to 8 as the same
suitcases and bags he and Gokul Das had carried into the rooms earlier.
His statement was formally recorded by police officials following these
events.
20. PW-1 corroborated these facts, stating that on the night in
question he instructed the room boys to check whether the rooms were
occupied. PW-3 reported that Rooms 201, 203, and 205 had been locked
from the outside. Upon instruction to verify, peering through the ventilator
of Room 205, PW-3 observed the body of a woman and informed him.
Following this discovery, PW-1 contacted the PW2 and there after the
police, and upon arrival, following their directions unlocked the Rooms
using the master key. After verifying the presence of the deceased, he
filed a formal police complaint (Exhibit P-1). He further testified that upon
inquiry, PW-2 confirmed the rooms were booked in the name of K.
21
Prasad, son of Dev Raj, and identified the suitcases as Material Objects
4 to 8.
21. The evidence from PW-2 and PW-3 clearly making out that
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 booked the rooms at approximately 6:00 PM on
20.08.2009 using the name of K. Prasad. The lodge register/Exhibits P-2
and P-3 reflects these entries. PW-3 further affirmed that at around 9:00
PM, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 arrived with the deceased and checked into the
rooms. He and another room boy transferred the luggage to the rooms
accordingly.
22. PW-3 is the sole direct witness who saw both the accused and
deceased arrived together and occupied the rooms. His testimony not
only corroborates that of PW-2 regarding the room bookings but also
provides a coherent narrative of the sequence of events. He further
detailed that the accused departed at 4:00 AM on 21.08.2009, claiming
they were going to receive guests from the railway station, never to
return. During his cross-examination, the defence failed to elicit any
material contradiction or discrepancy in PW-3’s account.
23. The accused contended that there exists a significant
inconsistency in the prosecution’s case, pointing out that the de facto
complainant, in the initial police report (Exhibit P-1), referred to the entry
of three women, three men, and two children into the lodge. This
assertion was reiterated during his deposition as PW-1. Further the PW-
3 deposed that two men and two women left the lodge in the morning.
The defence argued that these versions contradicts the core prosecution
narrative and raises a material improbability, thereby weakening the
prosecution’s case.
However, upon close examination of the evidence, it becomes
clear that PW-1 was not an eyewitness to the arrival or departure of the
22
individuals at the lodge. Rather, the only direct eyewitness to these
events was PW-3, a room boy employed at the lodge. PW-3
unequivocally stated that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 entered the lodge along
with the deceased individuals. He further clarified during cross-
examination that he does not recall making any statement to the police to
the effect that two men and two women left the lodge during the early
hours.
Importantly, PW-1 was not present at the time when either PW-3 or
LW-4 (another potential witness) observed the check-in or check-out of
the accused or deceased. Therefore, the statements made by PW-1, who
was not an eyewitness to the material events, cannot be relied upon to
establish a material contradiction or variance in the prosecution’s version
of facts.
Moreover, the evidence of PW-3 remains consistent and credible.
He categorically stated that all four accused entered the lodge along with
the deceased. His testimony remained largely unshaken even under
cross-examination, where no substantial contradictions were elicited
beyond mere suggestions. In the absence of any substantive challenge
to his account, PW-3’s positive identification and narrative remain legally
probative.
Consequently, the alleged discrepancy in the account provided by
PW-1–who lacks firsthand knowledge of the entry or exit of the accused
and the deceased–cannot be treated as a material inconsistency
capable of undermining the otherwise credible and consistent testimony
of PW-3. As such, this point raised by the defense does not suffice to
discredit the prosecution’s version of events.
As the testimony of the PW3 is credible and constitutes substantive
evidence, the chain of events — including the room bookings, the
23
accused and deceased occupying the rooms, and the subsequent
departure of the accused — stands prima facie established.
24. Identification of the accused in the Test Identification Parade (TIP):
To fix the identities of the accused during investigation the test
identification parade (TIP) was conducted. The accused have
challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s case by contending that the
identities of the accused were not established beyond reasonable doubt,
the accused were shown to the witnesses in the police control room, the
prosecution witnesses failed to identify certain accused individuals and
identified the accused No.2 due to her pregnant condition during the TIP.
25. In this regard, the record reflects that PW-24, the Magistrate who
conducted the TIP for Accused No.2, testified that PW-3 (a room boy at
the lodge), as well as PWs. 9 and 10 (both taxi drivers), successfully
identified Accused No.2 during the identification process.
Furthermore, PW-25, another Magistrate who conducted the TIP
for Accused Nos.1, 3, and 4, stated that PWs. 2 and 3, LW-4 (Kunal
Das), and PW-10 identified Accused No.4 but failed to identify Accused
Nos.1 and 3.
Additionally, PW-8, the sister of Deceased No.2, deposed that on
02.08.2009, following a phone call from her brother (Deceased No.2),
she was instructed to hand over Rs.2,25,000/- to two ICICI Bank officers.
According to her testimony, Accused Nos.2 and 3 came to her and
collected the said amount. She identified both Accused Nos.2 and 3
during the test identification parade and in the Court.
26. In regard to the failure to identify Accused Nos.1 and 3, PWs. 2
and 3 offered an explanation during trial, stating that they were subjected
24
to threats by Accused Nos.1 and 3 and, as a result, refrained from
identifying them during the TIP out of fear for their safety.
27. Upon careful scrutiny of this explanation, it is evident that it lacks
persuasive value. The identification parade was conducted under judicial
supervision by a Magistrate, and the witnesses remained silent about the
alleged threats until they were examined in court. The belated nature of
this disclosure significantly weakens the credibility of their explanation.
28. Regarding the defence argument concerning Accused No.2’s
alleged pregnancy at the time of the TIP, PW-24, the Magistrate who
conducted the identification parade, stated during cross-examination that
he was unaware of the accused being seven months pregnant on that
date. This statement clarifies that there was no discernible physical
distinction between the suspect and the non-suspects participating in the
parade. Thus, the contention that her pregnancy would have made her
easily distinguishable, thereby compromising the validity of the TIP, is
unfounded.
29. The defence also alleged that the suspects were shown to the
witnesses in the police control room prior to the TIP. However, if this
assertion were true, it raises the question of why PWs. 2 and 3 failed to
identify Accused Nos.1 and 3. This inconsistency lends some credence
to the prosecution’s argument that the witnesses may indeed have been
threatened, making such an explanation plausible in the circumstances.
30. Nevertheless, even assuming the failure to identify Accused Nos.1
and 3 during the TIP, this omission cannot be overstretched to
undermine the entire evidentiary framework, particularly the credible and
consistent identification of Accused Nos.2 and 4. The testimony of PW-3,
who unambiguously identified Accused Nos.2 and 4, remained firm and
unshaken. Similarly, PW-10, the taxi driver who claimed to have
25
transported the accused to Vijayawada, corroborated PW-3’s version by
also identifying Accused Nos.2 and 4 during the TIP. These consistent
identifications lend strong support to the prosecution’s account and
reinforce the credibility of PW-3’s testimony regarding the presence of
Accused Nos.2 and 4 at the lodge.
Therefore, even if Accused Nos.1 and 3 were not identified during
the TIP, this alone does not render the witnesses unreliable or invalidate
the testimony relating to Accused Nos.2 and 4. The consistent
identification of Accused Nos.2 and 4 by both PW-3 and PW-10, and
their corroborative accounts, sufficiently establish the presence of these
two accused at the lodge with the deceased, both at the time of check-in
and during their early morning departure. Accordingly, to the extent that
the presence of Accused Nos.2 and 4 at the lodge, in the circumstances
narrated by PW-3, is concerned, the prosecution has successfully
established this fact beyond reasonable doubt.
31. Discovery of Deceased’s belongings from the accused:
Another significant aspect of the prosecution’s case lies in the
recovery of personal belongings of the deceased from the possession of
the accused, which, in the opinion of this Court, constitutes a crucial
evidentiary link connecting the accused to the commission of the offence.
It is the case of the prosecution that, following the apprehension of
the accused at Jubilee Bus Station, Secunderabad, several incriminating
articles were recovered. These recoveries were made pursuant to
voluntary disclosures by the accused and were duly recorded under the
appropriate mediators’ reports (panchanamas) in the presence of
independent mediators/witnesses.
26
(a) From Accused No.1, the following items were recovered under the
cover of a panchanama, marked as Exhibit P-40:
• One black bead gold chain (M.O.9),
• One gold mangalasutram chain with black beads (M.O.10),
• Cash in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (M.O.49), and
• One cell phone (M.O.50).
(b) From Accused No.2, five gold bangles (M.O.11) were recovered
and seized under Exhibit P-41.
(c) From Accused No.4, the following were seized under Exhibit P-42:
• One gold ring with a yellow stone (M.O.12),
• One pair of gold earrings (M.O.13),
• One gold dollar with Trishul (M.O.14),
• One gold “Om” locket (M.O.15),
• One Taweez locket (M.O.16), and
• Cash amounting to Rs.3,000/- (M.O.51).
(d) In addition, Accused No.3 was found in possession of Rs.2,000/-
(M.O.52), and he made a statement to the effect that one long gold
chain, one small gold chain, and a gold ring with red stones were located
at his residence. This statement was reduced into writing under the
mediators’ report marked as Exhibit P-43.
32. Subsequently, during the course of police custody, pursuant to
further voluntary statements, the accused accompanied by the
27
Investigating Officer and mediators proceeded to their respective
residences and effected further recoveries.
(i) At the residence of Accused Nos.1 and 2, the landlord/PW-5
confirmed their tenancy. From that premises, Accused No.1 produced:
• Three keys corresponding to RAK Lodge Room Nos.201, 203, and
205 (M.O.s 1 to 3),• One Nikon digital camera (M.O.78),
• One Samsung MP3 player (M.O.79),
• One gold chain (M.O.17), and
• One pair of gold ear studs (M.O.18).
These items were recovered and documented under panchanama
Ex.P-75.
(ii) From the residence of Accused No.3, the following articles were
recovered:
• One big gold chain (M.O.19),
• One small gold chain(M.O.20),
• One gold ring with a red stone (M.O.21), and
• One Hall Ticket bearing No.070277172 (Ex.P-76),
• Note book of accused No.3, page Nos.19 to 21,
The above items were seized under Exhibit P-78.
(iii) From the premises of Accused No.4, a white plastic bottle
containing approximately 80 ml of ethyl alcohol (M.O.53) was voluntarily
produced and seized under panchanama Ex.P-79.
28
33. With specific reference to the seizure proceedings, PW-23, the
mediator present at the time of the initial recoveries, deposed that on
26.08.2009, at the Jubilee Bus Station outpost, the items seized from the
possession of the accused persons in confirmation with the seizure
panchanamas/reports marked as Exhibits P-40 to P-43 respectively.
During cross-examination, PW-23 maintained that the seizure
proceedings were conducted in his presence and denied the suggestion
that no recoveries took place or that no panchanamas were prepared in
his presence. However, he did concede that similar items could be found
in the open market, though such general availability does not negate the
evidentiary value of properly recovered articles, especially when directly
linked through identification and chain of custody.
34. Further corroborative evidence was provided by PW-38, who
deposed that on 05.09.2009, Accused No.1, 3 and 4 led the police and
the witness to their residences at Chaitanya Nagar, Kommadi, and MVP
Colony, Visakhapatnam, and voluntarily handed over the materials,
which was formally recorded under Exhibits P-75, P-78 and P-79. During
cross-examination, PW-38 firmly denied defence suggestions that no
recoveries were made and that the mediators’ reports were fabricated.
He reiterated that the articles were seized pursuant to voluntary
disclosures made by the respective accused.
35. The testimony of mediators PWs. 23 and 38 aligns coherently with
the overall prosecution theory. No material contradictions or
discrepancies have been elicited during cross-examination, other than
mere denials. The panchanamas executed contemporaneously and duly
attested by the mediators further corroborate the fact that the articles in
question were indeed recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus the
independent witnesses and documentary evidence, materially support
29
the prosecution’s version. The nature of the articles recovered and the
circumstances surrounding their seizure strongly indicate the involvement
of the accused in the commission of the offence. These facts acquire
probative significance and form an integral component of the chain of
circumstantial evidence. The consistent nature of these recoveries–
across multiple witnesses, locations, and the documentation are forming
a compelling body of evidence linking the accused with the crime.
36. Identification of articles of the deceased recovered from the
accused:
PWs. 1 to 3, who are owner and staff members of RAK Lodge,
unanimously deposed that they identified Material Objects 1 to 3, which
are the keys corresponding to Room Nos. 201, 203, and 205 of the
lodge. These keys, typically issued to customers upon check-in, were
recovered from the possession of the accused No.1.
37. PW-6, the brother of Deceased No.1 (Kadali Vijayalaxmi), PW-7,
the mother of Deceased No.2 testified to having identified Material
Objects 9 to 21, which were recovered from the accused during
investigation.
According to PW-6, these articles belonged to the deceased. He
affirmed that he had seen these items on the deceased individuals when
they departed from his house in Tanuku. He further stated that the
clothing (M.Os.4 to 8) and the gold and silver ornaments (M.Os.11 to 31)
were the personal belongings of the deceased. In cross-examination, it
was suggested to PW-6 that he had not previously informed the police of
his ability to identify the belongings of the deceased. While he admitted
that he had not provided specific details of the articles carried by the
deceased. However this omission does not detract from the evidentiary
30
value of his in-court identification, particularly given the familial
relationship and the familiarity it entails.
38. PW-7 identified Material Objects 9 to 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20. She
specifically testified that the gold mangalasutram chains and gold
bangles (M.Os.10 and 11) belonged to her daughter-in-law (Deceased
No.1), the gold ring and taweez locket (M.Os.17 and 16) belonged to her
son (Deceased No.2), and the earrings (M.O.13) belonged to her
granddaughter (Deceased No.3). In cross-examination, it was suggested
that she had not stated to the police that the deceased were in
possession of such articles or that she could identify them. While she
conceded that similar gold ornaments are available in the open market,
such a general statement does not negate the probative value of her
specific identification made before the Court.
39. The defence contested that the identification of the recovered
articles was made for the first time during trial, and no Test Identification
Parade (TIP) for the property was conducted during the investigation,
hence the reliability of the recovery should be questioned.
It is well-established in criminal jurisprudence that a Test
Identification Parade (TIP) for the person or the property is a part of
investigative procedure and is primarily conducted to ascertain whether a
witness is capable of identifying specific person or article allegedly
connected to the offence. Further it is also settled law that a test
identification parade does not constitute substantive evidence; rather, it
serves to lend additional assurance to the testimony of witnesses.
Importantly, neither the Criminal Procedure Code nor the Indian
Evidence Act mandates the holding of a TIP, whether for suspects or for
property.
31
Test identification parades are typically held when there is a
genuine dispute regarding identity or when a witness is unsure of their
ability to recognize the items or individuals in question. Even if such a
parade is not conducted, it does not render the in-court identification
inadmissible or unreliable per se. The identification made before the
court, under oath and subject to cross-examination, constitutes
substantive evidence and occupies a higher evidentiary value than a test
identification parade.
Further, it is pertinent to note that, mere lapses or irregularities in
the investigation, howsoever grave, by themselves do not vitiate the trial,
nor do they constitute a ground for acquittal, provided the prosecution
has otherwise succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that
deficiencies in investigation do not avouch the benefit to the accused
unless they cause serious prejudice or result in miscarriage of justice.
In C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2010) 9 SCC 567 held that,
“Where the investigation is defective, the Court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence, but it would not be justified
in rejecting the prosecution case solely on the ground of defective
investigation if the case is otherwise proved by credible evidence.”
And in,
In Karan Singh v. State of M.P. : (2021) 1 SCC 184 observed that,
“It is well settled that irregularities or illegalities in the course of
investigation would not affect the trial unless such illegalities or
irregularities have caused serious prejudice to the accused.”
32
Therefore, the absence of a TIP of the property in the present case
cannot be a sole ground for discrediting the substantive evidence on
record. Further, the positive evidence of seizure of these items from the
accused, coupled with the absence of any explanation from the accused
as to how they came into possession of such articles, strengthens the
prosecution’s case. Notably, the defence has not made any assertion that
the seized property belonged to them or that they had any lawful
entitlement to it. Accordingly, based on the totality of evidence, it can be
safely concluded that Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 were found in possession
of the ornaments and personal effects belonging to the deceased. The
Court is, therefore, justified in placing reliance on the recovered articles
by the close relatives of the deceased and drawing appropriate
inferences from the same. The possession of such items by the accused
provides strong corroborative evidence of their presence at the location
at relevant time crime.
40. Other incriminating material against the accused No.3:
Additional incriminating evidence has been brought on record
against Accused No.3, primarily through documentary and expert
testimony. As per the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-44), the
Lodge Register of RAK Lodge (Exhibit P-2) was seized on 26.08.2009.
Furthermore, the register of Sitara Lodge was obtained from that lodge
receptionist on 08.09.2009; however, the receptionist could not be
examined during trial as he had since passed away.
In continuation of the investigation, the officer also procured the
account opening form submitted by Accused No.3 to the State Bank of
India to facilitate forensic comparison, and also obtained specimen
signatures of Accused No.3 (Exhibits P-56 to P-59) and forwarded them,
along with the disputed writings and signatures from the lodge registers
33and bank form, to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert
analysis. The corresponding FSL report was marked as Exhibit P-60.
The Scientific Officer (PW-29), who conducted the examination,
deposed that the signature found in the register of RAK Lodge register
and the signature on the account opening form submitted to the State
Bank of India were all executed by the same individual. Based on this
finding, he issued the expert report under Exhibit P-60. During cross-
examination, a general suggestion was put to the witness that signature
analysis lacks scientific basis. However, no substantial evidence or
expert contradiction was presented to discredit the expert’s findings.
It is noteworthy that Accused No.3 has not disputed the
authenticity of the account opening form submitted to the State Bank of
India, which contains his admitted signature. It has also been argued on
behalf of the defence that there is no credible evidence of the seizure of
the lodge register. However, this contention stands rebutted by the clear
and consistent testimony of PW-44, the Investigating Officer, who
confirmed the seizure of the register during investigation.
Importantly, it is not the case of Accused No.3 that his signature
was forged or obtained under coercion on the lodge register by the police
or any third party. Thus, even assuming the specimen signatures
collected during the investigation (Exs. P-56 to P-59) and the register of
Sitara Lodge are to be excluded from consideration, the undisputed
signature on the bank account opening form (Ex. P-1) provides a valid
benchmark for comparison. The forensic conclusion that the same
individual signed both the RAK Lodge register and the bank form lends
substantial weight to the prosecution’s claim.
Accordingly, it must be held that the entries in the RAK Lodge
register were made in the handwriting of Accused No.3, thereby
34confirming his physical presence at the lodge during the booking of
rooms. This finding directly implicates Accused No.3 in the events
leading to the commission of the offence and corroborates his presence
alongside the co-accused at the relevant time.
41. The evidence demonstrating concerted acts of the accused:
Another relevant piece of evidence corroborating the presence of
the accused together is the testimony of PW-4, who was a classmate of
Accused No.1. PW-4 deposed that on 19.08.2009, Accused No.1
approached him over phone and requested for a unsigned blank cheque.
On the following day, 20.08.2009, again on phone call from Accused
No.1, he visited Sitara Lodge. Although he initially enquired about the
purpose of the blank cheque, Accused No.1 gave him a verbal assurance
that there would be no issue since his signature was not required.
Relying on this assurance, PW-4 handed over a blank cheque bearing
No.102944 to Accused No.1. Further he confirmed the collective
presence of the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sitara Lodge on 20.08.2009.
During cross-examination, PW-4 remained firm in his testimony,
reiterating that he had indeed given a blank cheque to Accused No.1. He
further stated that Accused No.1 was married to Accused No.2, and that
he had been introduced to Accused Nos.3 and 4 by Accused No.1 during
this visit.
His statement lends further corroboration to the prosecution’s case,
establishing not only the interpersonal connections between the accused,
but also their coordination immediately prior to the incident, thereby
reinforcing the chain of circumstantial evidence.
35
42. Motive and Criminal Conspiracy:
In prosecutions based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive,
although not indispensable, significantly strengthens the chain of
circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. As observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, motive is not a sine qua non but an
additional link which, when established, reinforces the prosecution’s
case.
In the present case, the prosecution alleges that Deceased No.2
had transferred substantial amounts of money from the UAE to Accused
No.2 with the intent of investing for returns. However, instead of
investment, Accused No.2 is alleged to have misappropriated the funds.
To escape liability for repayment and avoid confrontation, she is stated to
have conspired with the other accused to eliminate Deceased No.2 and
his family.
In support of this claim, Exhibits P-10 to P-26, consisting of money
transfer receipts, were placed on record. These documents substantiate
multiple remittances from Deceased No.2 to Accused No.2. Additionally,
PW-8, the sister of Deceased No.2, deposed that pursuant to her
brother’s instructions, she handed over Rs.2,25,000/- to individuals
posing as ICICI Bank officials. She later identified Accused Nos.3 and 4
as the persons who collected the amount under that pretext.
Furthermore, PW-4, a friend of Accused No.1, testified that on
19.08.2009, Accused No.1 requested a blank cheque, which he provided
the following day at Sitara Lodge, where all four accused were present.
This testimony confirms that Accused Nos.1 to 4 were together
immediately prior to the commission of the offence, thereby corroborating
their coordinated actions and common intention.
36
While the internal dealings and misappropriation between Accused
No.2 and Deceased No.2 may lie within their exclusive knowledge,
absolute material to prove the motive in such cases is often unattainable.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Sanjay Singh, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 707
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if motive is not firmly
established, its presence can reinforce other incriminating circumstances.
The collection of funds through misrepresentation, financial
transactions, co-location of all accused, and misuse of trust, form a
cohesive and credible narrative that indicates concerted action and a
meeting of minds, satisfying the requirements of Section 120B IPC
(Criminal Conspiracy).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi
Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609, clarified that conspiracy may be
proved by circumstantial evidence showing unity of purpose and common
design.
Thus, the cumulative evidence on record supports a clear
inference of criminal conspiracy among the accused, driven by a financial
motive and executed through deceit and planning.
43. Presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act:
It has been firmly established through the testimony of PW-2,
PW-3, and others that the accused were present with the deceased from
the time of check-in at RAK Lodge until their departure. The deceased
were last seen alive in the company of the accused, who later left the
premises without explanation.
In such circumstances, where facts are especially within the
knowledge of the accused, the burden of proof shifts onto them under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides:
37
“When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, held that when the accused fails to
offer an explanation for incriminating circumstances, and the facts lie
particularly within their knowledge, adverse inference may be drawn.
Similarly, in Gyan Chand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2018) 1
SCC 633, reiterated that failure to explain last seen circumstances under
Section 106 permits the court to draw adverse conclusions.
In the present case, the accused have offered no plausible or
credible explanation as to the fate of the deceased, nor have they
rebutted the presumption arising from their last known proximity.
Therefore, the failure to discharge the burden under Section 106, when
coupled with corroborative circumstantial evidence and absence of
alternative theories, justifies drawing an adverse inference against the
accused regarding their role in the commission of the offence.
The established financial link between Accused No.2 and
Deceased No.2, the presence of all accused at Sitara Lodge as
confirmed by PW-4, and the last-seen theory proven through PW-3’s
testimony, collectively reinforce the prosecution’s case. The concerted
actions of the accused, their failure to explain critical facts, and their
collective presence during the crime window, are consistent with a pre-
planned conspiracy and motive to eliminate the deceased.
44. Conclusion and Final Disposition:
In view of the discussion and findings recorded above, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
38material on record clearly reveals that all the accused acted in
furtherance of a common intention and criminal conspiracy to commit the
offences of murder and theft.
45. Consequently, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found to be independently
and jointly liable for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120-B and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned
judgment, in so far as the accused Nos. 1 and 2, are based on sound
reasoning and supported by credible evidence. The conviction recorded
under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is modified to Sections 302, 120-B
IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against Accused
Nos.1 and 2 deserves acceptance.
With respect to Accused Nos.3 and 4 upon reappraisal of the
evidence and in light of the reasoning discussed herein, this Court finds
that they were also active participants in the criminal conspiracy and
directly involved in the commission of the offences of murder and theft.
Therefore, the finding in the impugned judgment, which did not fully
record their culpability in line with the prosecution’s case, is held to be
unsustainable. In accordance with the findings herein, Accused Nos.3
and 4 are also held liable for conviction under Sections 302, 120-B and
380 IPC. Consequently, their convictions are modified to bring them in
parity with the other co-accused.
46. In light of the above, all the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B IPC
and 380 IPC, and are sentenced as follows:
• For the offence under Section 302 and 120-B IPC, each of the
accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
39fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
• For the offence under Section 380 IPC, each of the accused is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine,
each shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
47. In the result:
• The Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014 filed by Accused Nos.1 and 2,
• The Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2014 filed by Accused No.3, and
• The Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023 filed by Accused No.4, are all
found to be devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
• Conversely, the Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017 filed by the
prosecution challenging the improper conviction and sentence with
respect to Accused Nos.3 and 4 is found to be meritorious and is
therefore allowed in the terms stated above.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:12.06.2025
Note:
L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/O
ccm