Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. The gruesome murder for gain, in which the mother and her two children were subjected to cruel death, is the crux of the prosecution. On this allegation, Selvam alias Govindaraj, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 (3 counts), 380 and 404 I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts in brief are stated as follows:- (i) The deceased Bhuvaneswari, D1, was a divorcee, having two daughters by name Navya, D2 and Papitha @ Sowmiya, P.W.4, through her husband Muniraj. After getting divorced from her husband Muniraj at Bangalore, D1 came and settled with her mother in Hosur. P.W.2 Durai Selvam, a family friend of P.W.1, the brother of the first deceased, used to come to meet P.W.1 and his mother at their house. In the course of time, P.W.2 Durai Selvam developed intimacy with the first deceased. Then, they began to live as husband and wife separately in a rented house along with children. Some years later, one boy Aravind, D3, was born to them. A new building was constructed for them at Rajiv Nagar in Hosur. From February, 1997, they began to live in that house. (ii) The accused Selvam alias Govindaraj was working as a night-watchman in the said house. P.W.2 Durai Selvam, an already married man, was living with his first wife at Thogarapalli. He would be visiting the house of the first deceased once a week. One Babu, cousin of the first deceased was residing in the house to help to the first deceased. The accused-watchman used to sleep in front of the house during night time. (iii) On 12.04.1997, the accused took P.W.4 Pabitha to the tuition teacher's house at about 06.00 a.m. Thereafter, the accused came back to the house of the deceased. Taking advantage that D1 to D3 were sleeping alone inside the bed room, the accused entered into the bed room and attacked all the three deceased and removed the jewels and cash and put them in a bag. After locking the front side door, the accused came to the front-yard and took bath in the bathroom situate outside the said house. At that time, P.W.3 Santha, a servant-maid, came and saw the accused taking bath. After locking the front side door, the accused came to the front-yard and took bath in the bathroom situate outside the said house. At that time, P.W.3 Santha, a servant-maid, came and saw the accused taking bath. On seeing the accused using the soap meant for the use of P.W.2 Durai Selvam, P.W.3, the servant-maid asked him as to why he used P.W.2's soap. The accused asked P.W.2 not to make a fuss over it, since he would take care of it. After sometime, the accused left the house carrying a bag in his hand. (iv) After finishing tuition, P.W.4 Papitha came back home and found the house locked. As nobody was available, she went to her grand-mother's house and told the same to her grand-mother as well as P.W.1. Then, she was sent to the school from there itself. When they came back in the evening, the house was found locked. P.W.1. and his mother searched for the deceased in so many places on the same night, but could not locate them. A message was sent to P.W.2, the husband of the first deceased, through phone. On 13.04.1997, at 06.00 a.m., P.W.2 came there. Till that time, the deceased did not turn up. (v) On entertaining suspicion, P.W.1 and P.W.2 arranged some others to climb on the first floor to peep through the window of upstairs. Accordingly, they climbed and noticed that D1 and D3 were found dead with cut injuries. Then, P.W.1 and P.W.2 broke open the door and noticed that D1 Bhuvaneswari and D3 Aravind were found dead in the bed and D2 Navya was found dead in the stair case with cut injuries. The jewels and cash were found missing. On enquiry with P.W.3, they came to know that the accused was there in the house till 07.30 a.m. on 12.04.1997 and after taking bath, he went out of the house with a bag containing some articles. On hearing this statement, P.W.1 and P.W.2 suspected the involvement of the accused. Therefore, at about 07.15 a.m. on 13.04.1997, P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.14 the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.190/1997 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. (vi) Both the complaint and F.I.R. were sent to the Court, which received the same at about 01.30 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, at about 07.15 a.m. on 13.04.1997, P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.14 the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.190/1997 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. (vi) Both the complaint and F.I.R. were sent to the Court, which received the same at about 01.30 p.m. on the same day. (vii) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information, came to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.44 rough sketch. He conducted inquest over all the dead bodies on the same day in the presence of the Panchayathars. Then, he sent requisition to Doctor to conduct autopsy on the dead bodies. He recovered various bloodstained articles including bloodstained earth and sample earth. (viii) P.W.12, the Doctor, conducted postmortem on 13.04.1997 at 02.00 p.m. on the body of D1 Buvaneshwari and issued Ex.P.14 postmortem certificate. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of D2 Navya at 03.00 p.m. and issued Ex.P.17 postmortem certificate. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of D3 Aravind at 04.00 p.m. and issued Ex.P.20 postmortem certificate. In these postmortem certificates, P.W.12 the Doctor gave opinion that all the deceased would appear to have died of the multiple injuries found on their bodies. (ix) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police continued to investigate the case by examining the witnesses. He arranged to send the M.Os. for chemical examination. (x) In the meantime, P.W.16 another Inspector of Police was posted in the special team to continue the investigation in the above case. On 29.04.1997 at 09.00 a.m., he arrested the accused and in pursuance of the confession, he recovered the gold jewels, cash and aruval. (xi) Thereafter, the accused was handed-over to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police on 29.04.1997 at 07.00 p.m. The jewels were identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. On 30.04.1997, the accused was sent for remand. (xii) P.W.17 another Inspector of Police, who succeeded P.W.15, took up further investigation and examined other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 380, and 404 I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.P.1 to P.48 and also marked M.Os.1 to 68. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials available against him, the accused stated that he had no complicity in the crime in question. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.P.1 to P.48 and also marked M.Os.1 to 68. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials available against him, the accused stated that he had no complicity in the crime in question. 5. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offences referred to above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Ms.J.Sundarakanchani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the prosecution case bristles with several infirmities and as such, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. She would point out that the evidence relating to the presence of the accused at the relevant time in the house of the deceased as projected by P.W.3 and P.W.4 is doubtful as they would not have been present at the scene of occurrence. P.W.3 even though claimed that she was present in the house from 07.30 a.m. to 04.00 p.m., she did not choose to refer to the presence of P.W.4, who came back home after finishing tuition. Similarly, P.W.4 also did not refer to the presence of P.W.3 in front of the house. Therefore, their evidence is not a reliable one. Further Ex.P.1 complaint contains so many corrections. Since P.W.2 was inimical towards the accused, who was employed under him for some time and was dismissed from service due to misunderstanding, false case had been foisted against him. Even with regard to the evidence relating to the recovery, there is no consistency in the evidence of mahazar witnesses and of the investigating officer. Therefore, the said evidence has also to be eschewed from consideration. 7. On the above aspects, we have also heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and gone through the records. 9. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, there is no direct evidence. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. 7. On the above aspects, we have also heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and gone through the records. 9. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, there is no direct evidence. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution should be clearly established and those circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, without giving any room for hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. 10. Bearing in mind the principles enunciated by this Court and the Supreme Court, if we look at the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has placed vital circumstances, which would clearly indicate that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime and the circumstances shown by the prosecution, in our view, would form a complete chain without any missing link. For arriving at the above conclusion, our reasons are the following:- (i) There are two important circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. First, during the relevant time of the occurrence, namely, the period between 06.00 a.m. and 08.00 a.m. on 12.04.1997, the presence of the accused, watchman of the deceased house, has been spoken to by P.W.3, the servant-maid and P.W.4, the daughter of the first deceased. Secondly, the arrest of the accused by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on 29.04.1997 and the consequent recovery of the bloodstained weapon as well as the jewels and cash identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2, the brother and the husband of the first deceased. (ii) It is the clear case of the prosecution that the accused was working as a watchman in the house of the deceased. According to P.W.3 and P.W.4, the accused was working as a watchman and he would come in the night time and only in the next morning, he would go away. It is the specific case of P.W.3 the servant-maid that when she came between 06.00 a.m. and 07.00 a.m. on 12.04.1997, she found the door locked and saw the accused taking bath in the bathroom situate outside the house. It is the specific case of P.W.3 the servant-maid that when she came between 06.00 a.m. and 07.00 a.m. on 12.04.1997, she found the door locked and saw the accused taking bath in the bathroom situate outside the house. When the accused was asked about the whereabouts of the deceased, the accused told her that they have gone out and she was instructed by the first deceased that she could sweep the floor and put kolam and go away. At that time, on seeing the accused taking bath using the soap which was meant to be used by P.W.2, the husband of the first deceased, P.W.3 questioned about his act. Even then, the accused was using the said soap stating he would take care of the same and she need not ask about that. Thereafter, the accused went out of the house with a bag containing some articles. (iii) Similarly, P.W.4, the daughter of the first deceased, would state that the accused was working as a watchman and he took P.W.4 to the tuition teacher's house and left her and came back. She further stated that when the accused came from her tuition teacher's house, he was wearing a shawl, M.O.22, which was found near the body of the first deceased. When P.W.4 came back to the house, she also found the door locked, and therefore, she had to go to the house of her grand-mother and take and wear the uniform and then go to the school. If this evidence adduced by P.W.3 and P.W.4 is believed, there is no difficulty in holding that the accused was working in the house of the deceased as a watchman during the relevant time and at the time when the occurrence had taken place, the accused alone was available in the house of the deceased. (iv) Once it is established that the accused was in the house where the deceased were found dead, the accused has to explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that he never worked as a watchman under the first deceased. Strangely, a suggestion has been put to P.W.2 that the accused was working under P.W.2 for some time before the construction of the house was completed. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that he never worked as a watchman under the first deceased. Strangely, a suggestion has been put to P.W.2 that the accused was working under P.W.2 for some time before the construction of the house was completed. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, we are of the view that there is nothing to indicate that P.W.3 and P.W.4 speak falsehood against the accused. As a matter of fact, no enmity was suggested either to P.W.3 or to P.W.4. (v) It is true that P.W.4 is a child witness. The occurrence has taken place on 12.04.1997. P.W.4, the child witness was examined after two years in the year 2000. The questions and answers given in the deposition while P.W.4 the child witness was examined, would clearly indicate that P.W.4 was able to understand the questions and give the rational answers. Furthermore, the perusal of the deposition of P.W.4 in the cross-examination would clearly indicate that she is a reliable witness. In fact, she gave the reasons as to why she was to go to her tuition teacher's house along with the accused. Before construction of the new house, she was residing along with the deceased in a rented house, which is situate near the tuition teacher's house. During that time, she used to go by walk to the tuition teacher's house. But, after occupying the new house, she used to go to the tuition teacher's house accompanied by the accused, as the house is situate far away from the new house. Thus, it is clear that P.W.4, the child witness has given clear details which would make us to hold that P.W.4 is a truthful witness. (vi) Similarly, there is no necessity for P.W.3 to tell that the accused was working as a watchman and had taken bath at the bathroom situate outside the house for about half-an-hour during the relevant time. She would specifically state that when the accused went out of the house, he carried with him a bag containing some articles. There is no reason to reject her evidence, because in the same line, she had given a statement to the investigating officer. (vii) Further, the details given by P.W.3 and P.W.4 have been clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint, which was given by P.W.1. There is no reason to reject her evidence, because in the same line, she had given a statement to the investigating officer. (vii) Further, the details given by P.W.3 and P.W.4 have been clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint, which was given by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is so clear in the sense that P.W.1 himself stated that both P.W.3 and P.W.4 had informed him about the presence of the accused and taking bath in the bathroom and then leaving the house with a bag. As a matter of fact, though there is a suspicion against the accused on the basis of these materials, P.W.1 does not specifically state that the accused alone must have been the culprit, but he merely mentioned that he entertained suspicion on the accused. (viii) The sequence of events would clearly indicate that they decided to give a complaint entertaining suspicion on the accused, only after noticing of the abscondance of the accused. Till such time, they did not suspect the involvement of the accused. (ix) The next important circumstance is recovery of the jewels and cash and weapon. Ex.P.42 serological report relating to Billhook would indicate that M.O.68 Billhook contained human blood. On the confession of the accused, all the jewels which were found missing from the house of the deceased were recovered. They are M.Os.24 to 53. These jewels were correctly identified by P.W.1, the brother and P.W.2 the husband of the first deceased. The arrest and recovery has been spoken to by P.W.11 mahazar witness and P.W.16, the investigating officer. Nothing has been elicited from them during the course of cross-examination to indicate that they speak falsehood against the accused. Though the occurrence took place on 12.04.1997, the accused was arrested only on 29.04.1997. On that day, one bundle of 50 Rupees currency notes, one bundle of 5 Rupees currency notes and one 100 Rupees currency note were recovered along with the jewels. In fact, P.W.2, who is the husband of the first deceased, has specifically stated to the police that one bundle of 50 Rupees currency notes and one bundle of 5 Rupees currency notes had been taken away by the accused. The value of the jewels weighing 70 sovereigns and cash is more than Rs.2,00,000/-. Once recovery from the accused is established, it is for the accused to explain with regard to possession of the same. The value of the jewels weighing 70 sovereigns and cash is more than Rs.2,00,000/-. Once recovery from the accused is established, it is for the accused to explain with regard to possession of the same. As indicated above, there is no necessity for the witnesses or for the Police to rope the accused in the murder case by showing the recovery of jewels and cash valuing about more than Rs.2,00,000/-. (x) Yet another circumstance is about the presence of M.O.22 shawl below the bed of D1, which was worn by the accused. It is specifically stated by P.W.4 that when she was taken to the tuition teacher's house, the accused was wearing M.O.22 shawl. The evidence of P.W.15, Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.5 recovery mahazar would show that M.O.22 was recovered from underneath the bed of the first deceased. Exs.P.35 and P.36 chemical report and serological report would show that the shawl contained `A' group human blood. This is also an additional circumstance to indicate that the accused alone had committed this grave murder for gain. 11. Much was said about the delay in lodging the complaint. This submission has no basis. The dead bodies with injuries were found only on 13.04.1997 at about 07.00 a.m. Only thereafter, they decided to lodge a complaint. 12. Yet another argument was advanced that P.W.2 being the husband of the first deceased did not choose to give the complaint. It makes no difference with reference to the lodging of the complaint, because the complaint has been given by none else than the brother of the first deceased, who informed about the missing of the deceased to P.W.2 on the earlier night itself. 13. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are unable to see any infirmity in the materials available on record. Therefore, we conclude that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the accused are perfectly justified. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial court.