Circumstantial evidence must clearly establish each link for conviction; mere recovery is insufficient without a strong evidential chain.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the learned Additional SPP appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused. The appeal against respondent No.4 stands abated.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 30.12.2006, the deceased by name Lakhan @ Lakshman left Mysuru to Bengaluru carrying cash of Rs.28,05,300/- belonging to his employer P.W.1 Sunil for the purpose of depositing the same in bank account in Bengaluru. His colleague P.W.2 Raghunath dropped him to Mysuru bus stand. The prosecution version is that, when the deceased Lakhan was sitting in the bus, accused No.1 who was the driver employed by P.W.1 Sunil, asked him to get down from the bus saying that he is going to take him to Bengaluru in his own vehicle and on the way, accused Nos.2 to 4 abducted the deceased and forced him to drink water containing cyanide, which led to the death of said Lakhan and thereafter, they threw his body near a ditch in Ankihalli Village within the limits of Arehalli Police Station, Hassan District. Then they threw the suitcase and key from a bridge into the water and burnt his clothes at another place and distributed the cash of Rs.28,05,300/- and the jewels and other valuables stolen from said Lakhan amongst themselves. The body of Lakhan was found by the villagers of Ankihalli on 04.01.2007 and at that time, UDR No.1/2007 was registered by Arehalli Police. After subjecting the said dead body to post mortem, since nobody came forward to claim the body, it was buried. In the meantime, on 31.12.2006, P.W.1 Sunil, the employer of the deceased and to whom the said cash of Rs.28,05,300/- belonged to and on whose behalf the deceased was taking the money to Bengaluru, filed complaint to the Lashkar Police, who registered FIR for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC . After said P.W.1 Sunil had lodged the complaint, on the same day after noon at 01:38 p.m., he got a phone call from an unknown number saying that Lakhan is with them and demanding Rs.20,00,000/- ransom and saying he will call back at 05:00 p.m. The said Sunil informed the same to the Lashkar Police on 02.01.2007 and on that basis, the offence under Section 364A of was included in the FIR. The investigation did not progress further till 03.03.2008, on which date accused Nos.1 to 4 herein were arrested by the CCB Police, to whom the investigation had been transferred in the meantime, on the basis of suspicion because they were spending excess amounts of money in one Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant.

3. It is the prosecution version that, after the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 4, on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 4, the police have made recoveries, which proved the complicity of accused Nos.1 to 4 in the offence. The above prosecution version regarding the manner in which the offence was committed is based purely on the voluntary statement made by accused Nos.1 to 4. It is the prosecution case that, after the place where the dead body of Lakhan was thrown in Ankihalli village was shown by accused Nos.2 to 4 to the CCB police, the CCB police made enquiry with the jurisdiction police whether any dead body had been found there and only thereafter, it was discovered that the dead body on the basis of which UDR No.1/2007 was registered and which had been buried after subjecting the same to post mortem, was the body of deceased Lakhan. After accused Nos.2 to 4 showed the place where they had thrown the dead body, the Investigating Officer too