Karnataka High Court Convicts Domestic Help In Triple Murder Case; Asks State To Consider Tenant-Like Verification For Migrant Workers

However, at the same time, the Bench cautioned that migrant workers must not be stigmatized as a class, emphasising that criminal liability is individual in nature and that constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apply to all persons.

The Bench set aside the acquittal of four migrant workers in a 2009 triple murder case in Bengaluru, holding them guilty of conspiring to murder a professor, his wife, and their son, inside their residence and robbing their valuables. The accused were employed as maid with the deceased family. The Court also observed that the case does not fall within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.

Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T thus allowed the State’s appeal and convicted the accused for offences under Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against them.

The Division Bench observed, “It is seen in recent times, incidents have been reported where Inter-State migrant, who were engaged for domestic or construction work, have allegedly been involved in serious offences such as murder and robbery in the very premises where they were employed. In many such cases, the house owners or employers had engaged the workers without conducting any background verification, identity confirmation, or registration with the concerned authorities. Some of such migrant workers frequently committing crimes and fleeing away and as such, the same have to be streamlined by issuance of certain guidelines by the State Government. This situation highlights the urgent need for preventive safeguards through strict enforcement of existing labour and criminal regulatory mechanisms…”.

“…Further, a structured and mandatory police verification mechanism should be introduced before engaging workers who reside within private premises, similar to tenant verification systems, with simplified online registration portals accessible to the public. At the same time, widespread public awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media platforms should be undertaken to educate citizens about safe hiring practices. However, while strengthening preventive mechanisms, it is equally important to ensure that migrant workers are not stigmatized as a class, since criminal liability is individual in nature and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India protect the dignity and equality of all persons. Thus, balanced judicial directions aimed at regulation, awareness, and accountability without discrimination which would serve the larger interest of public safety and social justice”, the Bench further observed.

The Bench held that although the crime involved the killing of three persons, the circumstances of the case did not meet the threshold of the “rarest of rare” doctrine for imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appropriate punishment would be life imprisonment.

The Court noted that the accused, who were migrant labourers from West Bengal, fled after committing the offence and were traced only after a prolonged investigation. Two of the accused were eventually apprehended in West Bengal nearly twenty months after the incident, following which the remaining accused were secured in Bengaluru based on their disclosures.

Rashmi Patel, H.C.G.P. appeared for the appellant and Advocate G.R. Sheshadri appeared for the respondent.

The case relates to the murder of a Professor, his wife and their son at their residence in R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru, in 15-02-2009.

According to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 had entered the household as domestic help where they allegedly conspired with other accused persons to rob the family. In execution of the conspiracy, the accused strangled all three victims using a wire, a mobile charger cable, and a dupatta before fleeing with gold, silver, cash and other valuable articles from the house.

The Sessions Court had earlier acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, however, the State challenged this acquittal before the High Court.

The Court, thus, reassessing the evidence, held that the prosecution had established a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused in the house, the recovery of stolen articles at their instance, and their conduct following the incident.

The Court observed that the accused, who had gained access to the victims’ residence through domestic employment, had conspired to commit the murders and robbery.

Despite the delay and difficulty in tracing the accused, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the conspiracy and the circumstances linking the accused to the crime.

Appearances:

Appellant: Rashmi Patel, H.C.G.P.

Respondents: G.R. Sheshadri, Advocate.

Click hereto read/download the Judgment