It is alleged that Accused No. 1 was arrested on the same night and that the Police thereafter went in search of original Accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are the present Appellants, at their respective villages.The prosecution alleges that the four Accused came to be arrested in quick succession and that a relatively large amount of property in the form of gold, jewellery and currency notes, etc., was either discovered at their instance or recovered by the Police in the course of the investigations.JUDGMENT Saldanha, J.It was alleged that the present Appellants, along with original Accused No. 1, had committed an act of dacoity with murder on 7-10-1984 at flat No. 18, 8/2 situate on the 18th floor of Woodlands building, Peddar Road, Bombay.It was alleged by the Prosecution that the five Accused were instrumental in tying up, gagging and ultimately committing the murder of a sole inmate of the flat one Veerchand Dhanji Tajani at about 4 p.m. on the afternoon on that day.It was further alleged that after committing the aforesaid murder, the Accused had ransacked the flat and that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 had hurriedly left the building; whereas Accused No. 1 was found in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat.According to the Prosecution, one Dr. Shroff, who is a neighbour, had noticed original Accused No. 1, who was a servant employed by Tajani, in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat and that he had informed the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4), to bring this fact to the notice of the Security Officer.When Suresh Mohite informed the Security Officer, Bali (P.W. 1), he immediately came up and on entering the flat of Veerchand Tajani found him in a tied condition on the bed.Since Veerchand Tajani was already dead, Bali lodged a complaint with the Police, who immediately came there and commenced their investigations.The Prosecution further alleges that the sister-in-law of the deceased and her son were shown the property that was recovered from Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and that a greater part of this property, which was in the form of jewellery, has been identified by them.Ultimately, on completion of the investigations, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were put on trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, at the conclusion of the trial was of the view that there was no evidence against Accused No. 1 and, consequently, acquitted him.As far as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they were convicted of the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the respective sentences to run concurrently.As regards the alternative charge under Section 411 of the Indian penal Code against Accused Nos. 2 to 5, in view of the aforesaid conviction, the learned Trial Judge dropped this particular charge.The evidence adduced by the Prosecution falls under certain broad heads, the first of them being the evidence of certain witnesses on the basis of which the Prosecution seeks to establish the presence of the present Accused at the scene of offence.Thereafter there is the evidence relating to the discovery, recovery and seizure of the property by the Police and the simultaneous arrest of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 from their respective native places, all of which has taken place in quick succession in the immediate days following the incident.Thereafter the Prosecution has sought to rely also on the fingerprint evidence, particularly that of one of the fingerprints which is attributed to Accused No. 2 and which, according to the Prosecution, was found on a bottle in the flat of the deceased.The next head of evidence on which the Prosecution relies is the identity of the jewellery and the property by the sister-in-law of the deceased, Mrs. Tajani, her son and one Zhavari (P.W. 24), who is an approved valuer.Lastly, there is the evidence of the respective police officers who have recounted the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the manner in which the Accused were traced and arrested.They have deposed about the manner in which the property was retrieved and the other supportive evidence was gathered.It will be essential in the present case, in keeping with the well set law relating to circumstantial evidence, that this Court will have to examine each of the circumstances alleged against the Accused and will have to come to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances, which consists of several links, indicates that every link has been properly established and that the chain of circumstances lead to only one irresistible conclusion which points to the guilt of the Accused and to nothing else.This is all the more necessary because the Accused in their defence have neither admitted their presence nor have they admitted any recovery of property at their instance.They have taken up a defence of total denial.In this view of the matter, the Prosecution case will have to be established on its independent footing in so far as the Accused have admitted nothing.As far as the first head of evidence is concerned, the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) has deposed about what had happened on that afternoon.He states that the car lights of a vehicle belonging to one Mr. Apte, who resides on the 24th floor of that building, were found to be on and he was instructed to go up to the flat on the 24th floor and to inform Mr. Apte of this fact.He gives the time as 4 p.m. in the afternoon and states that he had gone to the flat at the instance of Bali (P.W. 1), the Security Officer, and that he conveyed the message at Mr. Apte's flat on the 24th floor.Thereafter he pressed the lift button and got into the lift when it came to the 24th floor.He states that on the way down, the lift automatically stopped at the 19th floor and four young persons boarded the lift, out of whom one was carrying a bag.Another incident occurred immediately thereafter, namely, that when the liftman came to the 18th floor, Dr. Shroff told Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) that the servant of Mr. Tajani was lying in a tied condition outside the flat and that he should call the Security Officer.This was something unusual and out of the ordinary pattern and it is in all probability this circumstance of what transpired thereafter which made Suresh Mohite recall the fact that he had seen the four persons boarding the lift and leaving the building at that time and, furthermore, that their faces had got registered in his memory because of the fact that they appeared to be frightened.Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) thereafter informed Bali (P.W. 1) who, in turn, came to the flat and discovered the inmate of the flat, Mr. Tejani in a dead condition.Obviously news must have spread all around the building particularly when the Police were immediately called in and the most pertinent question which the liftman and th security staff must have been asked by everybody, including the Police, was with regard to who were the persons seen entering and leaving the building around that time.Unfortunately, the matter does not rest there because, as pointed out earlier, Suresh Mohite has identified the four Accused on the 19th October 1984 when his statement was recorded by the Police and when these Accused, along with other persons, were in the Police Station.He has also identified the Accused in the Court.It is true that there is a minor discrepancy in his evidence in so far as he has stated that it was Accused No. 4 who was carrying the bag in the course of his evidence; whereas the defence has brought it on record that he had told the Police that Accused No. 3 was the person carrying the bag.The incident has taken place in the day time.The Accused had boarded the lift on the 19th floor that was closeby to the place where the incident took place and an unusual incident had also occurred immediately thereafter when Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) was informed about Accused No. 1 being in a tied condition.A cumulative effect of these factors does lead us to believe that if the memory of this witness were such that he could point out the four Accused not only to the Police but also in the course of the trial that his evidence on the point of identification and on the all important aspect of establishing the presence of the Accused in the building at that time will have to be accepted.The Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of one maid servant Jayashree Gawade (P.W. 3), who knows Accused No. 3 personally.It appears that initially this witness had turned hostile obviously because she did not want to give evidence against Accused No. 3 whereupon she was cross-examined and material portions of her Police Statement were brought on record in the course of the cross-examination which, in turn, have been proved through the Investigating Officer.Jayashree has stated that Accused No. 3 hurriedly came to the adjoining Shanti Building and that he had told her that he had been removed from service, that he hurriedly handed over an amount of Rs. 450/- to her with a message that Rs. 200/- should be given to his brother Yeshwant and that he also informed her that there was a taxi waiting downstairs as he was leaving for his native place.The evidence of this witness will at the highest indicate that Accused No. 3 on that afternoon had suddenly come into possession of a certain amount of money and that he was in a hurry to leave for his native place.By themselves, these circumstances may appear to be innocuous, but in the light of the fact that this Accused No. 3 was one of the persons who had taken part in the incident which culminated in the death of Mr. Tejani and the ransacking of his flat and that he immediately thereafter came with a certain amount of currency and hurriedly left to his native place would have to be regarded as incriminating circumstances against him in the light of the connection with the earlier incident.The Prosecution has examined Krishnabai More (P.W. 7), who is a maid servant working in the adjoining building by the name Sheth Minar on Peddar Road.This witness has deposed to the fact that Accused No. 3 collected his salary on the afternoon of that day from the person with whom he was working on the pretext that he had to leave for his native place urgently and further that Accused No. 2 had also accompanied him at that time.Again, the fact that Accused No. 3 wanted to collect his salary and go away to his native place or the fact that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 may, in themselves, appear to be innocuous circumstances, but this Court will have to take note of two factors of some significance, the first of them being that Accused No. 3 was in a desperate hurry to collect his salary for which he waited for some time, that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 and that he had also stated that he was leaving for his native place urgently without disclosing any special reason for this visit.The urgency and the hurry displayed by Accused No. 3 on that afternoon is a circumstance that would go heavily against him in the light of the fact that his presence at the scene of offence a short time earlier was established and it was, therefore, clear that Accused No. 3 in the company of Accused No. 2 had decided to leave the city immediately which is consistent more with his guilt than with his innocence having regard to his connection with the offence.The Prosecution has also examined Yeshwant Kamble (P.W. 8), who is a Security Supervisor of the Sheth Minar Building on Peddar Road.He has deposed about two facts, the first of them being the friendship between Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the fact that on the date of the incident at about 4-30 p.m. he had seen Accused Nos. 2 and 3 visiting the building and that he had also seen them leaving, one of them carrying a bag and the second one carrying some other item.It is true that this witness is a security supervisor of the adjoining building.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants have vigorously attacked the evidence of this witness and the earlier two in so far as they have pointed out that there is no doubt whatsoever of the fact that the Police have just picked these persons up and recorded vague statements with the sole object of trying to establish the presence of the Accused at or near the place of the incident.Learned Counsel have also contended that even the evidence taken at its face value would at the highest show that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were around the said Sheth Minar Building on that day and that they left in the afternoon, but this would not establish their presence at the Woodlands Building.It is necessary to bear in mind that in the light of the earlier evidence of Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) and the Security Supervisor Bali (P.W. 1) and the fact that the incident had just taken place in the Woodlands Building, the presence of these two Accused in the adjoining building and their hurried departure from that place are circumstances of some consequence and are circumstances that fully fit in with and establish the Prosecution theory.The cumulative effect of the evidence of these witnesses will, undisputedly, indicate that the Prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the presence of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 at and around the scene of offence on the date of the incident and the manner in which they have left therefrom.Before dealing with the strongest circumstance against the present Accused, namely, the recovery of a substantial amount of property, it is necessary for us to refer to the evidence relating to the finger prints.Bhimrao Shinde (P.W. 13), who is a Finger Print Expert, has been examined as also Dattatraya Kathe (P.W. 14), who is a Police Photographer.It is alleged that the Police discovered chance finger prints which were sent to the expert for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the four Accused.The defence Counsel have seriously challenged this finding before the Trial Court and a reading of the very detailed cross-examination will indicate that the challenge put forward was a very substantial one.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has supported his conclusion with detailed reasoning.It has been argued on behalf of the defence that there is nothing unusual or incriminating about the Accused wanting to go to their home town.One factor needs to be borne in mind, namely, that the four Accused leaving Bombay at the same time and not being able to put forward any special reason for their wanting to leave Bombay, where all of them were working, in such a hurry, and going to their native places is a circumstance that is more against the Accused than one that can be regarded as being in their favour.The Police have brought on record the most incriminating evidence in this case, namely, the fact that immediately on the night of 7-10-1984 itself the investigating authorities came to know the names and addresses of all the four assailants.The Police have immediately swung into action and significantly in more than one of the cases the Police reached the native place even before the concerned Accused got there.The Prosecution has examined the respective Police Constables and the Investigating Officers who had gone to these places, traced out the Accused and arrested them and brought them to Bombay.For the purposes of setting at rest this controversy, it would be both necessary and useful to refer to the evidence of Hemlata Manilal Tejani (P.W. 17), the sister-in-law of the deceased, and her son Amrish Manilal Tejani (P.W. 19), nephew of the deceased.These two witnesses are close relations of the deceased and it has come on record that they used to visit his flat and they were familiar with his possessions.

Relevant sections: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code