MUMBAI, June 20 -- The Bombay high court recently acquitted two individuals serving life sentences in connection with the murder of four of their family members in 2008. Highlighting serious procedural lapses in recording the confessional statements, the court set aside their convictions and directed the authorities to release them. The case involves the murder of four persons - Vanasubai, her nephew Sanjay, niece Sadhana and Sanjay's fiancee Rekha - in October 2008 in Palghar. Prosecution alleged that because of a dispute over property, Vanasubai's daughter-in-law Seema, grandson Rakesh Mahadu Dandekar and his friend Mahendra Karwa conspired with other accused to commit the murder. While Vanasubai was murdered by strangulation, Sanjay, Sadhana and Rekha were forcibly drowned and thrown into a septic tank behind a railway colony near Gholwad. Based on the confessional statements of Mahendra and Rakesh, both were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on April 2, 2013 by the additional sessions judge, Palghar. However, during the trial, 11 of the witnesses turned hostile, and the case was challenged in the Bombay high court in 2013. Submitting that there is no direct evidence against the appellants, advocate Dinesh G. Mishra said that the circumstantial evidence is extremely weak. He contended that the mandatory procedure for recording confessional statements was not followed by the magistrate court, rendering the confessional statement invalid. Relying on Mahendra's statement, the state submitted that he had played an important role in carrying the bodies from the murder spot to the septic tank. However, setting aside the conviction, the division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It also noted that the prosecution failed to examine the residents of the railway colony and, therefore, could not produce any conclusive evidence. The court flagged Mahendra's confessional statement, too, as he was not properly warned about the consequences. This, prejudicially affected Mahendra's testimony, it said....