JUDGMENT SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2007 has been preferred by the appellant i.e original accused No.5 Rajendra Dandropalli and Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2007 has been preferred by the appellant i.e original accused No.2 Ramesh Pandori. Both the appellant have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the learned 12th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 680 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both these appellants for the offence under Sections 452, 395 and 396 of IPC. For the offence under Section 396 of IPC, both the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- IDRI for six months. For the offence under Sections 452 and 395 of IPC, on each count, each of the appellant was sentenced to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- IDRI for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court i.e appellant Ramesh Pandori will be referred as 'accused No.2' and the appellant Rajendra Dandropalli will be referred as ' accused No.5'. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under : (a) First informant PW 1 Rajendra Salot was residing on the 6th Floor of Maheshwar Prakash Building, Santacruz (W), Mumbai. He was residing there along with his wife Hema, his daughter Janvi, his son Parth, his father Batukbhai, his brother Pankaj and his mother Nirmalaben (deceased). At the relevant time, two servants were working in the house. One of them was accused No. 1 Gangaram and second servant was accused No.5 Rajendra. (b) The incident took place on 20.05.2003 between 07.30 p.m. to 08.00 p.m. On that day the complainant Rajendra Salot left his house at 02.00 p.m. to go to his office. His brother Pankaj left the house at about 02.00 p.m. The wife, son and daughter of the complainant had left the house to go to the clinic. His father left the house at 04.00 pm to 04.30 pm for shopping. His brother Pankaj left the house at about 02.00 p.m. The wife, son and daughter of the complainant had left the house to go to the clinic. His father left the house at 04.00 pm to 04.30 pm for shopping. At that point of time, Nirmalaben and servant Rajendra that is accused No. 1 were the only persons present in the house because accused No. 1 Gangaram used to work in the morning and used to take a break after the meal and thereafter return back in the evening. That night, after going to the clinic, the wife, son and daughter of the complainant went to a hotel to have meals. At about 08.30 p.m. on his way back home, the complainant picked up his wife and children from the hotel. When he reached near his building, his brother in law Vipul was waiting for him along with PW 8 Ramkishor i.e driver of the complainant. Vipul had called the complainant in the day and told the complainant that he would be coming to the house of the complainant. The complainant, his wife, children and others went to the flat on the 6th floor. The complainant rang the door bell of his house but nobody opened the door, hence, he opened the door with a key which was with him. On entering, he saw that everything was scattered and the doors of the cupboard were open. He found that jewellery was robbed. So also, cash was robbed from the house. On entering the kitchen, he noticed that his mother was lying on the ground with her face downwards. Her hands and legs were tied with a cloth. There was a cable wire around the neck of his mother. The complainant called the doctor. The doctor, after examining Nirmalaben, declared her to be dead. Then the complainant went to police station and lodged FIR Ex. 15. Thereafter, investigation commenced. (c) The dead body of Nirmalaben was referred for postmortem. During the postmortem, it was found that Nirmalaben died due to violent asphyxia due to smothering associated with strangulation (unnatural). Accused No.2 Ramesh Pandori was arrested on 21.05.2003. Accused No.5 Rajendra Dandropalli was arrested on 23.05.2003. Accused No.6 was arrested on 11.07.2003. The jewelery and cash came to be recovered at his instance. After their arrest, test identification parade of both the appellants and other accused were held. Accused No.2 Ramesh Pandori was arrested on 21.05.2003. Accused No.5 Rajendra Dandropalli was arrested on 23.05.2003. Accused No.6 was arrested on 11.07.2003. The jewelery and cash came to be recovered at his instance. After their arrest, test identification parade of both the appellants and other accused were held. The present appellants were identified by PW 3 Sudama who was the watchman of the building. According to him, accused No.5 Rajendra Dandropalli was working as a servant in the house of the complainant. On the date of the incident i.e on 20.05.2003 at about 07.30 p.m., PW 3 Sudama had seen accused No. 5 Rajendra and four persons going to the 6th floor. One of the four persons was accused No.2 Ramesh. PW 8 Ramkishor has also identified accused No.5 Rajendra as the person who had gone to the flat of PW 1 Rajesh Salot along with accused No.2 Ramesh and three other persons. He also identified accused No.5 Rajendra as being the servant of the complainant PW 1 Rajendra Salot. During the course of investigation, chance finger prints were taken from the flat of the deceased. They were sent to finger print expert. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant Rajendra i.e accused No.5 and the appellant Ramesh i.e accused No.2 and 4 other accused under Section 396 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellants have murdered Nirmalaben and looted jewelery and cash from the flat. 5. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. As far as accused No.2 Ramesh is concerned, two circumstances go against him. 5. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. As far as accused No.2 Ramesh is concerned, two circumstances go against him. The first circumstance is that he was seen by two witnesses going to the flat of the deceased at about 07.30 p.m on 20.05.2003 and the second circumstance is that his fingerprints were found on the cupboard in the flat of the deceased. PW 3 Sudama who was the watchman of the building has stated that on 20.05.2003 little after 07.30 p.m., he saw accused No.5 Rajendra going to the 6th floor with four persons. Accused No.2 Ramesh was one of the persons who went with accused No.5 Rajendra to the 6th floor. After about half an hour, he saw accused No.5 Rajendra and four other persons including accused No.2 Ramesh coming down to the ground floor. One of the four persons was holding a plastic bag. Thereafter, accused No.5 Rajendra and four persons left the premises. Immediately, thereafter, accused No.1 Gangaram, who was also working in the flat of the complainant and the deceased, also left the premises. 6. PW 8 Ramkishor was working as a driver with PW 1 Rajendra Salot. He has stated that at about 07.45 p.m., he came to the building of PW 1 Rajendra Salot. At that time, he saw accused No. 1 Gangaram talking to watchman of the building where his master PW 1 Rajendra Salot was residing. This witness has stated that at around 08.00 p.m., he saw accused No.5 Rajendra Dandropalli, who was the servant of PW 1 Rajendra Salot, going upstairs. He was accompanied by four persons. Accused No.2 Ramesh was one of the said persons. After about 20 minutes, accused No.5 Rajendra, accused No.2 Ramesh and three others came to the ground floor. On their return, accused No. 5 Rajendra had a talk in Telgu language with accused No.1 Gangaram. One of the persons who came down with accused No. 5 Rajendra was holding a plastic bag containing some articles. Then all the accused went away. It is pertinent to note that at about 08.45 p.m., when the complainant PW 1 Rajendra Salot came home, he found that no one was answering the door bell. One of the persons who came down with accused No. 5 Rajendra was holding a plastic bag containing some articles. Then all the accused went away. It is pertinent to note that at about 08.45 p.m., when the complainant PW 1 Rajendra Salot came home, he found that no one was answering the door bell. He, therefore, opened the door of his flat with the key that he had and he found that his mother Nirmalaben was lying dead on the ground. Her hands and legs were tied with a cloth. There was a cable wire around the neck of his mother. All the articles in the house were scattered and the cupboards were open. The evidence of PW 3 Sudama who was the watchman of the building shows that at about 06.00 p.m., the wife and children of PW 1 Rajendra Salot left the house. At that time, only the servant i.e accused No.5 Rajendra and Nirmalaben were the only persons in the house. At about 08.45 p.m., when the complainant PW 1 Rajendra Salot came home, his mother was found dead. In between this period, accused No.5 Rajendra and accused No. 2 Ramesh were seen by PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor going to the flat of the complainant at about 07.30 p.m. and coming down about 20-25 minutes thereafter. Immediately thereafter, on entering the house, PW 1 Rajendra Salot found his mother Nirmalaben dead. 7. As far as accused No.2 Ramesh is concerned, in addition to the evidence of PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor which shows that he had gone to the flat of the deceased just before the dead body of the deceased was found, the prosecution is also relying on the evidence of PW 5 Kalaskar who is the finger print expert. The finger prints were sent to the finger print expert. PW 5 Kalaskar has deposed about his aspect. PW 5 Kalaskar examined the finger prints. In his opinion, finger prints of accused No.2 Ramesh were found on the cupboard in the flat of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 Ramesh was not working in the house of the deceased. He was in no way connected with the deceased. He was not even known to the deceased. In his opinion, finger prints of accused No.2 Ramesh were found on the cupboard in the flat of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 Ramesh was not working in the house of the deceased. He was in no way connected with the deceased. He was not even known to the deceased. In such case, finding of his finger prints on the cupboard in the flat of the deceased is a highly incriminating circumstance which strongly goes against him. 8. As far as accused No.5 Rajendra is concerned, the evidence of PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor, which we have discussed above, shows that he was working with the family of the deceased. The evidence of both these witnesses i.e PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor shows that Nirmalaben was found dead with a cable wire around her neck at about 08.45 p.m and the evidence of these two witnesses establishes that at about 07.30 p.m., accused No.5 Rajendra along with four other persons including accused No.2 Ramesh went to the 6th floor. The flat of the complainant and the deceased is situated on the 6th floor. Further after about 20 minutes accused No.5 Rajendra along with four other persons including accused No.2 Ramesh came down. At that time, one of the person was carrying a plastic bag in which there were some articles. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor establishes the presence of these accused in the building of the deceased which is shortly before the dead body of Nirmalaben was found in the house. The evidence of PW 3 Sudama and PW 3 Ramkishor also shows that accused No. 5 Rajendra took four other persons with him to the 6th floor where the house of the complainant and the deceased was situated. There was no reason for accused No.5 Rajendra to take four persons with him to the 6th floor where the flat of the deceased was situated. The evidence of PW 3 Sudama and PW 8 Ramkishor also shows that about 08.00 p.m., Rajendra left the building. The working hours of accused No.5 Rajendra were from 09.00 a.m. morning till 09.00 to 10.00 p.m. at night, however, on 20.05.2003, Rajendra left the building at about 08.00 p.m. The evidence on record shows that thereafter, he did not return back to the house of the complainant. The working hours of accused No.5 Rajendra were from 09.00 a.m. morning till 09.00 to 10.00 p.m. at night, however, on 20.05.2003, Rajendra left the building at about 08.00 p.m. The evidence on record shows that thereafter, he did not return back to the house of the complainant. Thus, disappearance on his part also speaks volume of his guilty mind. 9. On ground through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellants with the crime, hence, we find no merit in both the appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed. 10. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities and to the appellants who are in jail. 11. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Ms. Rohini Dandekar who is on the panel of the High Court Legal Services Committee and who was appointed to represent the appellants in these appeals. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matters and she has very ably argued the appeals. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in each of the appeals by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 2500/-. Appeals dismissed.