Buried under 45 loads of soil: How search for missing mason led Karnataka Police to his killer brother

The police learnt that Ravichandranaika, 40, a mason, had been missing for nearly two months. His family offered varying explanations: he had gone elsewhere for work, or had left the village and would return. But he never did. His disappearance also mattered for another reason. His signature was needed for the partition of his late father’s property, leaving relatives waiting for him.

“Usually, the community people are very together, and they don’t let the police get involved. Even the police were unsure because we had only heard rumours that he had not been seen for two months. I sent a police constable there, and we received information that he had been killed,” Hanumanthappa recalled.

As the police began asking questions, the mystery deepened. Investigators learnt of tensions within the family and suspected that Ravichandranaika’s wife, Savithribai, 33, was in a relationship with his elder brother, Raja Naik, 47.

“One of the relatives suspected that Savithribai and Rajanaika had something to do with his disappearance. That was a breakthrough for us. We brought both of them to the police station for questioning,” Hanumanthappa said.

What followed gave investigators their first real lead: Savithribai allegedly told the police that Ravichandranaika had been murdered.

A body buried 500 metres from home

The investigation took a decisive turn when the police began reconstructing what had happened on the night Ravichandranaika disappeared.

According to the police, Ravichandranaika returned home late on April 2, 2022, after consuming alcohol. An argument broke out after he confronted his wife, Savithribai, over her relationship with his brother, Rajanaika.

The quarrel turned violent. Rajanaika attacked Ravichandranaika, causing him to fall to the ground. Savithribai held his hands and legs while Rajanaika stepped on his chest and continued the assault. Ravichandranaika died inside the house.

The two then had to find a way to dispose of his body.

The couple’s two school-going children were at home that night. According to the investigation, they were sent outside and later made to sleep near the roadside, allowing Savithribai and Rajanaika to move the body without being noticed.

Early on April 3, the two carried Ravichandranaika’s body out of the house and took it to a property about 500 metres away. The property, an under-construction house, belonged to Rajanaika.

A 5-feet-deep pit had already been dug at the site for the construction work. Rajanaika had also ordered soil for the house. According to Hanumanthappa, the construction work provided an opportunity to conceal the body.

“After the murder, they took the body to the pit that had been dug for construction of the house. Rajanaika had already ordered soil for the construction. The next day, he got the workers to pour around 40 to 45 loads of soil into the pit,” Hanumanthappa said.

The construction work concealed the body. For nearly two months, Ravichandranaika remained missing while his family reportedly told relatives that he had gone elsewhere for work. His phone remained unreachable, and there was no clear account of where he had gone.

When the investigation led the police to the property, they sought permission from the tahsildar to excavate the site. On June 3, 2022, the police and other officials reached the property, with senior police officers present. A JCB was brought in, and the excavation began. The police said around 40 to 45 loads of soil were excavated before the JCB uncovered human remains.

A doctor was called to the spot, while the recovery was documented through a mahazar. Police officials also photographed and video-recorded the excavation.

An earlier murder case

As investigators examined Rajanaika’s background, they found that he had previously faced a murder trial.

In 2019, Rajanaika was arrested in connection with the death of his wife, Shravantibai. He was later acquitted in that case due to lack of evidence.

The earlier case did not establish his involvement in Ravichandranaika’s murder. However, it became part of the background police considered while investigating his younger brother’s disappearance and the circumstances surrounding his death.

In the present case, the prosecution’s theory was that the motive was linked to both Rajanaika’s relationship with Savithribai and the dispute over the family property.

According to the evidence presented before the trial court, Ravichandranaika and Savithribai frequently quarrelled, and investigators found that Ravichandranaika had learnt about the relationship between his wife and his elder brother.

Investigating officer Hanumanthappa said Rajanaika’s earlier murder case also made police cautious while dealing with him.

“He had earlier faced a murder case in connection with his wife’s death and was acquitted. In this case, after killing his own brother, he tried to conceal the body similarly and escape. We were keeping a close watch on him, and that helped us arrest him before he could get away,” Hanumanthappa said.

DNA and the children’s statements strengthened the case:

Finding the remains was only one part of the investigation. Police still had to establish that the body recovered from the pit was that of Ravichandranaika and connect the circumstances of his death to the accused.

The condition of the remains made identification difficult. Investigators therefore turned to forensic evidence.

Hanumanthappa said a blood sample was collected from Ravichandranaika’s son and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for DNA profiling. The DNA report, which was produced before the trial court, stated that the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample matched the DNA profile obtained from the recovered remains identified as those of Ravichandranaika.

For the police, the report provided the scientific link between the remains recovered from the pit and the man who had been missing for nearly two months.

But the DNA evidence was only one part of the prosecution case. Police also relied on the statements of Ravichandranaika’s children, who were present at the house on the day of the incident.

According to Hanumanthappa, the children had seen their father at home that day and witnessed the quarrel. They also saw Rajanaika come to the house and question Ravichandranaika. The children asked what was happening, following which their uncle (Rajanaika) told them to sleep outside because he was drunk and would shout at them.

“They were important witnesses because they were present in the house that day. They saw their father, witnessed the quarrel, and saw Rajanaika come to the house and question him. They were asked to sleep outside as he was drunk and would shout at them. They later told us that their father never returned home after that day,” Hanumanthappa said.

Police had initially recorded the children’s statements during the investigation. However, given their age and their position within the family, senior officers decided that their statements should also be recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“The senior officers told us that it would be stronger if the children’s statements were recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164. They told the Magistrate what they had witnessed – that their father was at home that day, that the quarrel took place and that he never returned after that. Along with the DNA and FSL report, this became important evidence,” Hanumanthappa said.

The police placed a substantial body of documentary, forensic and oral evidence before the court. The prosecution marked documents including the complaint, spot mahazars, witness statements, seizure mahazars, photographs and DVDs of the investigation, the inquest report, demand extract, sketch, post-mortem report, final opinion, Section 65-B certificate, FIR, voluntary statements, statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the FSL report. Twelve material objects were also produced.