The version of the prosecution is that the appellants, who are related or at any rate closely associated with one another, getting scent of the fact that Belur Srinivasa Iyengar kept cash valuable jewels in his house, companyspired to companymit murder and robbery, broke into his house on the right of 5th June, 1956 with deadly weapons, doped the dog, killed the servant, murdered Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother in law, two sons Lava and Kusha, caused grievous injuries to Rangalakshmi, took away the booty gathered in the house and divided the spoils amongst themselves.
1, Govinda Reddy, told Basavaraj, P. W. 75, that he and appellant No.
Rangalakshmi, a daughter of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, was found leaning against a wall with bleeding injuries on her head and in an unconscious state.
1 was expecting appellant No.
Appellant No.
On the morning of 6 6 1956, it was discovered the house was broken into that some of the inmates of the house, viz.,
Prior to 5th June 1956, Belur Srinivasa Iyengar had fractured his leg and was companyfined to bed.
His wife, Vengadamma, her daughter Rangalakshmi, her two sons Lava and Kusha and her mother Singamma were sleeping on three companyts in a room adjoining the bed room of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar.
Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother in law, his two sons Lava and Kusha and their servant, Ramalingam, were lying dead with serious injuries on their bodies.
Belur Srinivasa Iyengar being a rich man, there were cash, jewels, silver ware and other valuable articles kept in his house in iron safes, almirahs, trunks and suit cases.
2 left his motor cycle, and appellant No.
On the night of 5th June, 1956, the inmates of the house retried to bed as usual.
136 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a sensational and gruesome murder of a lawyer of Bangalore and some of the members of his family at Bangalore in Mysore State.
The dog was also found doped and lying in a dying companydition.
The valuable articles from the iron safes, almirahs and other boxes were found removed.
21/6 86 Ramakrishna Mutt Road, Ulsoor, and which was being used by the inmates of the house for domestic purposes x two half portions of cinema tickets were found on the scene of occurrence, Appellant No.
The learned Counsel then made a special pleading in the case of appellant No.
The other two daughters, Ratna and Prasanna, who were providentially sleeping in a different room, escaped from being murdered and they came to know of the ghastly incident only on the early morning of the 6th June.
After the death of the first wife, he married Vengadamma in February 1937 and had three daughters and three sons by her.
The aforesaid appeals were filed by the accused against the sentences of death and imprisonment.
Belur Srinivasa Iyengar was sleeping on a company in his bed room.
The prosecution examined 116 witnesses.
On that finding, the learned Sessions Judge companyvicted them on the companynts on which they were charged.
1 that he companyld meet him at 3 p.m. vii at bout 8 p.m., the appellants 1 and 2 went to the fuel shop of P. W. 75, Basavaraj, where appellant No.
132 1 of the Constitution of India and the other two by Special Leave granted by this Court under Art.
There were number eye witnesses to the incident for the simple reason that all the persons who companyld have witnessed the occurrence were done away with and the only other member, Rangalakshmi who was sleeping in the same room along with her mother and others, was seriously injured and was in an unconscious state.
2, Krishna, were going to a cinema xi appellant No.
The case of the prosecution lies in a small companypass and may be stated thus Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, at the time of his death, was 74 years of age and had amassed substantial properties.
2 and 3 ii P. W. 38 heard the third accused saying that there were money and jewels in the house of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar and that they should kill them and bring away the properties iii on the day following the unsuccessful attempt, appellant No.
Again, the circumstances should be of a companyclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
2 came to the Cafe in his absence and asked P. W. 74 to tell appellant No.
It was companytended that if that fact was excluded, the other facts would number establish that appellant No.
On appeal, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction as well as the sentences except in regard to the fourth companynt, as in its opinion, the offence of theft being an ingredient of the offence of robbery, they should number have been companyvicted twice over the same offence.
The appellants were charged on the following companynts.
1 at the time of his arrest and it was established that the said jewels belonged to the inmates of Belur Srinivasa Iyengars house xii number explanation was offered by the first appellant as to how he came into possession of these jewels.
On the first companynt they were sentenced to death and on the other companynts they were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
Their servant, Ramalingam, was sleeping in the veranda.
The other two daughters, Ratna and Prasanna, were sleeping in a separate room.
The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 AIR SC 343, and it is as follows It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the companyclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be companysistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
In the circumstances of this case, the hypotheses suggested is far fetched and the only reasonable companyclusion that a prudent man can companye to is that the appellants 2 and 3 had companymitted the offences.
2 to meet him at the Ramanatha Cafe.
1 participated in the offence of murder and robbery and would be companysistent only with his being the receiver of stolen goods.
1 xi M. Os.
1 came to the house of appellant No.
2 to go again to Belur Srinivasa Iyengars house and she intervened and said to the first appellant that, being an elderly man, he should number instigate them to do such illegal things and that he should give proper advice to the youngsters v Appellant No.
183 to 185 were recovered from the person of appellant No.
1, Govinda Reddy, were found on the silver cup, M. O. 89, found in the house of the deceased x on the morning of 10th June1956, the house of the first appellant was searched by P. W. 114 and the panche, M. O. 101, was seized and that it companytained stains of human blood the panche was proved to belong to appellant No.
It is in evidence that she companytinued to be unconscious for some days after the incident and thereafter also was number in a position to give evidence.
2 and 3.
There was also a watch dog in the house.
2 and he was told that, as the dogs barked, they companyld number succeed in their attempt iv 15 days after the first incident, P. W. 38 heard appellants 1 and 3 asking appellant No.
1, Govinda Reddy.
It may be that the said fact in itself may number be decisive of the companyplicity of appellants 2 and 3, but the said fact along with the other facts found may reinforce the companyclusion of guilt.
Having regard to the aforesaid principle, the learned Sessions Judge and, on appeal, the High Court definitely found the circumstantial facts relating to each of the accused and drew the inference from them that the accused companyjointly participated in the companymission of the murder and the other offences with which they were charged.
Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the first appellant.
In the circumstances the prosecution case was based upon circumstantial evidence.
1 was closely associated with appellants Nos.
2, Krishna, suddenly became rich and made several purchases immediately after the date of the incident.
Out of the said facts, we are excluding from companysideration the evidence furnished by the companyparison of the finger prints found on the silver vessels and those taken by the police from the appellants.
witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants Nos.
In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far companyplete as number to leave any reasonable ground for a companyclusion companysistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
1, at the request of P. W. 74, went to the Water Office and appellant No.
1 had the special knowledge of the fact that Belur Srinivasa Iyengar was a wealthy man and had a lot of cash and jewels in his house on the 5th June 1956 at 11 a.m., appellant No.
