Bengaluru police link missing‑person report to seven murders.

A missing persons complaint that unravelled Bengaluru’s seven murders Senior police officers said that Sunita, the accused’s wife, and Roopavathi, his mother‑in‑law, were the first to be murdered. The grim revelation emerged during a press conference on Tuesday, when the Bengaluru City Police disclosed a timeline that linked a routine missing‑person report to a string of killings that had baffled investigators for more than a year. The complaint, lodged by a neighbour who noticed Sunita’s sudden disappearance, set off a chain of forensic examinations, CCTV analyses and witness interviews that ultimately a serial offender operating across the city’s southern suburbs..

The missing‑person report was filed on 12 February, a day after Sunita failed to return from a routine grocery run. Her brother, Rajesh Kumar, approached the local police station with a simple statement: “My sister has not come home; we have not heard from her for 24 hours.” Officers initially classified the case as a domestic disappearance, but a junior detective, Anil Sharma, flagged inconsistencies in the family’s alibi, prompting a deeper inquiry that would soon unmask a far more sinister pattern. Detective Sharma’s curiosity was piqued by an odd detail in the complaint – the mention of a recent, heated argument between Sunita and her husband, Arvind Rao, over a financial dispute..

The argument, according to neighbours, had escalated in the presence of Roopavathi, who was known to be a vocal presence in the household. When Sharma cross‑checked local crime logs, he discovered two unsolved homicides in the same neighbourhood within weeks of Sunita’s disappearance: the murders of a 32‑year‑old woman, Meena Joshi, and a 58‑year‑old retiree, Venkatesh Murthy. Both victims had been found with similar blunt‑force injuries and no signs of robbery..

The forensic team, led by Dr. Latha Menon, re‑examined the crime scenes with fresh eyes. Using newly acquired DNA sequencing technology, they identified a faint trace of a rare soil type – later determined to be from the industrial belt of Hosur Road – on both Meena’s and Venkatesh’s clothing..

This clue, combined with the proximity of Sunita’s last known location, suggested that the perpetrator might be moving within a confined radius, using familiar routes to evade detection. The soil evidence became a cornerstone of the emerging hypothesis linking the cases. In parallel, the police revisited CCTV archives from commercial establishments near the victims’ homes..

After painstakingly stitching together fragmented footage, investigators spotted a dark‑coloured sedan making repeated trips between the three neighbourhoods on the evenings of the murders. The vehicle’s registration was partially obscured, but a distinctive bumper sticker – a stylised peacock – matched a small logistics firm that employed a modest fleet of three trucks. The company’s records revealed that Arvind Rao, a senior clerk, had been granted occasional use of one such vehicle for personal errands..

Armed with this convergence of forensic, digital and testimonial evidence, detectives obtained a court order to search Rao’s residence on 3 March. The raid uncovered a chilling cache: a blood‑stained kitchen knife, a set of gloves bearing traces of the same Hosur Road soil, and a series of handwritten notes detailing dates, locations and “reasons” for each killing. Among the notes were entries that referenced “settling scores” with Sunita and Roopavathi, suggesting a motive rooted in familial discord rather than random violence..

The discovery sent shockwaves through the community, confirming that the missing‑person complaint had indeed been the key that unlocked a hidden murderous spree. During the ensuing interrogation, Rao remained stoic, offering only vague denials. However, forensic psychologist Dr..

Meera Sinha noted signs of controlled aggression and a possible personality disorder consistent with individuals who commit familicide before extending violence outward. Rao’s confession, when finally extracted after hours of questioning, painted a grim picture: he admitted to killing Sunita after a heated argument over a dowry dispute, and subsequently murdering Roopavathi to eliminate a potential witness. The subsequent killings, he claimed, were “to cover tracks” and “silence anyone who might connect the dots.” The police have now identified five additional victims whose deaths, until now, were recorded as unrelated accidents or natural causes..

These include a 45‑year‑old accountant found dead in his apartment after a supposed fall, and a 70‑year‑old retired teacher whose heart attack was later linked to a fatal blow concealed by bruises. Each case shares the same soil signature and a similar modus operandi: a single, powerful strike to the head followed by an attempt to stage the scene as an accident. The pattern confirms that Rao’s murderous run spanned at least seven confirmed deaths over a ten‑month period..

Legal experts warn that the case highlights systemic gaps in how missing‑person complaints are processed. Professor Arvind Patel of the National Law University, Bengaluru, remarked, “The initial classification of Sunita’s disappearance as a routine domestic issue delayed a coordinated investigative response. This tragedy underscores the need for mandatory cross‑checking of missing reports against unsolved violent crimes, especially in densely populated urban areas.” The police department has pledged to overhaul its protocols, integrating AI‑driven analytics to flag potential correlations in real time..

Community reaction has been a mixture of relief and lingering fear. Residents of the affected neighbourhoods have organised vigils, lighting candles at the sites of the murders to honour the victims..