JUDGMENT : Isaac, J. 1. This reference and the appeal arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Quilon, dated 23rd October 1971 in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1971. The accused in that case, one Sri Chandrasenan Nair was found guilty of murdering two unmarried girls, Sarala Kumari aged 18 years and Shaubanath aged 19 years by administering poison; and he was sentenced under section 302, Indian Penal Code to be hanged by the neck till he is dead. The reference is by the Sessions Judge under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence, and the appeal is by the accused. 2. The appellant is a B.Sc., B.Ed. graduate teacher. He is unmarried and is aged 27 years. He belongs to a place called Mylakad within the jurisdiction of the Chathannur Police Station in Quilon District. His house is about 2 to 3 furlongs to the north of Mylakad junction where the road from a place called Kannanellur meets the National Highway to Trivandrum. Sarala Kumari was the eldest daughter of P.W. 1 through his first wife, who died about 7 years ago. After her death, P.W. 1 married he younger sister, P.W. 4; and through this marriage he has got five daughters. All of them were living together; and their house is about 100 metres to the south of the above junction. P.W. 1 is a trader' and he has got a shop at that junction. Shaubanath was the third daughter of P.W. 2, who was employed in a ration shop. She lived with her parents in a house about two furlongs to the south of the house of P.W. 1. 3. At the time of their death, Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath were studying in the second year Pre-degree course in S.N. College for Women, Quilon. They were class-mates from the second standard and were most chummy friends. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are other two young girls belonging to Mylakad. They were also studying in the same class in the same college along with Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath and were their good friends. P.W. 8 is the daughter of P.W, 3, whose house is about 40 metres to the north of the house of P.W. 1. 4. The appellant is the son of a cousin brother of P.W. 1; and he has been closely associated with P.W. 1 and the members of his family. P.W. 8 is the daughter of P.W, 3, whose house is about 40 metres to the north of the house of P.W. 1. 4. The appellant is the son of a cousin brother of P.W. 1; and he has been closely associated with P.W. 1 and the members of his family. He was unemployed for some time after he took his degrees. Then he started a tutorial college, which was conducted in a shed put up near the house of P.W. 1 with the help of some of his well-wishers in that locality. Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath, P.Ws. 8, 9 and others were having tuition in that college. About two years before their death, the appellant closed down the tutorial college, when he got employed as a teacher in the local Panchayat High School. Thereafter, he used to give tuition to Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath in the house of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 8 and 9 had also tuition from the appellant in that house till a few months before the occurrence; and thereafter they used to go to P.W. 1's house to have their doubts, if any, cleared by the appellant, at the time of his giving tuition to Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath. 5. The University examination held in March-April 1971 for the Pre-degree course commenced on 24th April and ended on 24th May 1971. Both Sarala Kumari and Shaubanath appeared for that examination. On the 21st May 1971, both of them appeared for one of the papers; and they returned to their respective houses in the afternoon. The next paper, which was the last one was fixed for the 24th of that month. P.W. 1 returned to his house at about 10.30 p.m. after closing the shop, when he found Sarala Kumari studying in her room. At about 11.30 p.m. he went to bed. Then also he found Sarala Kumari studying in the same room. Three of her younger sisters, who used to share that room, were also found there. P.W. 2 returned home at about 9 p.m. when he found his daughter Shaubanath studying in her room. He went to bed at about 10 p.m. and then also he found her in the same manner. 6. At about 12.30 a.m. P.W. 1's second daughter waked up P.W. 1 and reported to him that Sarala Kumari was ill. P.W. 2 returned home at about 9 p.m. when he found his daughter Shaubanath studying in her room. He went to bed at about 10 p.m. and then also he found her in the same manner. 6. At about 12.30 a.m. P.W. 1's second daughter waked up P.W. 1 and reported to him that Sarala Kumari was ill. He immediately went to her room and found her lying flat with her face down. He called her; and there was no reply. He felt a smell like that of kerosene. He ran out to the road, and requested one Ibrahimkutty to fetch a car immediately. Then he woke up his neighbour, P.W. 3 and came back to the house with P.W. 3. In the meanwhile, Ibrahimkutty brought a car. The girl was immediately taken to the Kottiyam hospital; and the doctor, after examining her said that the girl had died due to poisoning. The dead body was taken back to the house. Early in the morning, P.W. 3 went to the Chathannur Police Station, and gave an information at 7.30 a.m. Ext. P-1 is the statement of P.W. 3 which was recorded by P.W. 39, the Sub Inspector-in-charge of that station. On the basis of that statement he registered a crime, showing the offence as "unnatural death". Ext. P-39 is the First Information Report. 7. P.W. 2 was woken up at about 5 a.m. on 22nd May 1971 by somebody, and informed about the death of Sarala Kumari. He conveyed that information to his wife, and asked her to pass it on to Shaubanath. The mother found Shaubanath's room locked from inside. She called her daughter twice or thrice. There was no response. She reported that matter to P.W. 2, who also came to the room and called the daughter. Still there was no response. He looked into the room through the ventilator of a window, and found his daughter lying down as if sleeping. All attempts to wake her up failed; and a nasty smell was also coming out of the room. He immediately went out and fetched his wife's brother, Kassim, who is P.W. 5 and was residing nearby. P.W. 5 also found the girl in the same position. He broke open the door of the room; and they found that the girl was dead. P.W. 5 went to the Chathannur Police Station, and lodged an information. He immediately went out and fetched his wife's brother, Kassim, who is P.W. 5 and was residing nearby. P.W. 5 also found the girl in the same position. He broke open the door of the room; and they found that the girl was dead. P.W. 5 went to the Chathannur Police Station, and lodged an information. His statement was recorded by P.W. 39 at 7.45 p.m.; and a crime was registered on its basis showing the offence as "unnatural death". Ext. P-2 is the statement and Ext.P-40 is the First Information Report. 8. After registering the two crimes, P.W. 39 went to the house of P.W. 1 first. He conducted an inquest on the body of Sarala Kumari between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on 22nd May 1971. Ext. P-26 is the inquest report. Then he went to the house of P.W. 2 and conducted an inquest on the body of Shaubanath between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 a.m. on the same day. Ext. P-27 is the inquest report. In both cases, the panchayatdars returned a verdict of suicide by poisoning as a result of frustration in life arising from bad performance in the examination. The dead bodies were examined by P.W. 14, an Assistant Surgeon attached to the local Government dispensary on the same day. In both cases, he sent pieces of stomach with contents, liver and kidney, heart and lungs for chemical examination, which was done by the Chemical Examiner to the State Government. Ext. P-12 is the post-mortem certificate and Ext. P-13 is the certificate of chemical analysis relating to Sarala Kumari. On the basis of Ext. P-13, the Assistant Surgeon issued another certificate Ext. P-14, showing the cause of death. Ext. P-12 states, among other things, that the "uterus was enlarged to 12 week size containing male foetus". Ext. P-16 is the postmortem certificate and Ext. P-17 is the certificate of chemical analysis relating to Shaubanath. On the basis of Ext. P-17, he issued a certificate Ext. P-12, showing the cause of death. Exts. P-13 and P-17, the certificates of chemical analysis show the same result. They state "parathion, a highly poisonous organo-phosphorus compound was detected in the Viscera and contents covered by item Nos. 1 to 4. They also added that parathion is the toxic ingredient of the insecticide sold under the trade names ' Folidol', ‘Ekatox ', etc. Exts. Exts. P-13 and P-17, the certificates of chemical analysis show the same result. They state "parathion, a highly poisonous organo-phosphorus compound was detected in the Viscera and contents covered by item Nos. 1 to 4. They also added that parathion is the toxic ingredient of the insecticide sold under the trade names ' Folidol', ‘Ekatox ', etc. Exts. P-14 and P-18 returned the same opinion, namely" death is due to poisoning with organo-phosphorus compound (parathion). 9. The whole story, though somewhat sensational seemed to have ended there, but for some strange incidents which took place subsequently. The appellant, who could have been in the normal course one of the chief mourners for that tragedy was not seen either at the house of Sarala Kumari or that of Shaubanath in connection with any of the events that took place in their respective houses on that day. On the morning of the next day, 23rd May 1971, P.W. 32 one of the elder brothers of the appellant came to the Chathannur Police Station and presented a petition, Ext. P-31 before P.W. 39, the Sub Inspector of Police. There are three counter-petitioners in Ext. P-31; and the second one is P.W. 6, who is aged 24 years and a neighbour of the appellant. Ext. P-31 stated, among other things, that he came to know from the first counter-petitioner the appellant was in the Panchayat High School till 11.30 p.m. on 21st May 1971 in the company of P.W. 6, that sometime later, a few persons went to the said school enquiring for them, when the appellant and P.W. 6 were not seen there, that the third counter-petitioner had been enquiring for the appellant in the locality on the following day and there was no information about the appellant, that P.W. 32 enquired to P.W. 6 about the appellant, when P.W. 6 gave evasive answers, that P.W. 32 had been searching for the appellant since the 22nd, and he did not get any information, and that he had, therefore, serious apprehension about the safety of the appellant. P.W. 32, for the above reasons requested P.W- 39 to make necessary enquiries about the appellant and save him from any danger. On the morning of 23rd May 1971, P.W. 32 went to the police station and reported that the missing man had been traced, whereupon P.W. 39 directed him to produce the appellant in the station. P.W. 32, for the above reasons requested P.W- 39 to make necessary enquiries about the appellant and save him from any danger. On the morning of 23rd May 1971, P.W. 32 went to the police station and reported that the missing man had been traced, whereupon P.W. 39 directed him to produce the appellant in the station. The appellant was produced before P.W. 39 on the evening of the following day. He was generally questioned by P.W. 39 and directed to appear before him again on the next day. The appellant did not turn up. The school re-opened after mid-summer recess on 1st June 1971. The appellant did not report for duty. He was found absconding from the place from 24th May 1971. P.W. 1 got suspicious about the occurrence; and he filed a petition to the Government on 30th May 1971 for having the case thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, P.W.43, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Quilon was deputed to investigate into the matter. He took up the investigation on 18th June 1971. By 29th June 1971 P.W. 43 came to the conclusion that the death of the two girls was caused by the accused by administering poison to them; and he sent the reports, Exts. P-49 and P-50 to the Sub Magistrates Court, Quilon to amend the First Information Reports, Exts. P-39 and P-40, by showing the name of the appellant as the accused, and section 302 I.P.C. as the offence. 10. In the meanwhile, P.W. 25, a nephew of P.W. 2 got a letter Ext. P-3 dated 7th June 1971, from one of his friends, Meera Sahib, who is employed in the Indian Air Force, and was at that time posted at Agra. Ext. P-3 stated, among other things, that he had heard about the two deaths, that Chandran had been arrested by the Agra Police for the offence of attempt to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills from Sree Krishna Lodge near the Railway Station, and that a letter addressed to the two girls were recovered from his room which stated that he was also taking poison from the city of Taj Mahal to die in the manner as they had died. The reference in Ext. P-3 was obviously to the death of Saralakumari and Shaubanath and to the appellant. P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to know about the above letter; and that information reached P.W. 43 also. The reference in Ext. P-3 was obviously to the death of Saralakumari and Shaubanath and to the appellant. P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to know about the above letter; and that information reached P.W. 43 also. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police, Agra was contacted; and P.W. 42, the Sub Inspector of Police, Quilon West was deputed to Agra to verify the information contained in Ext. P-3, and question the accused. 11. P.W. 42 reached Agra on 26th June 1971; and contacted the Sub Inspector of Agra. He came to know that the appellant had been arrested on 1st June 1971 for the offence of attempt to commit suicide, and that he was in the District Jail, Agra pending trial of that case. On 28th June 1971, P.W. 42 met the appellant in the Jail, and interviewed him. The appellant expressed a desire to make a confession. P.W. 42 filed a report before the Additional District Magistrate, Agra requesting him to record a confessional statement of the appellant. The Additional District Magistrate endorsed that report to P.W. 40, the Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate of Agra, who went to the jail on 5th July 1971, and recorded a statement from the appellant in accordance with the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. Ext. P-42 is that statement, in which he confessed having given paramer/poison to Saralakumari and Shaubanath, which they consumed for committing suicide. In the meanwhile, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of attempt to commit suicide in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Agra; and he was accordingly convicted by that court, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week under section 309 I.P.C. by judgment Ext. P-22 dated 30th June 1971. On 9th July 1971, the appellant was taken into custody by P.W. 42 who escorted him to Kerala and produced him before the Sub Magistrate, Quilon on 13th July 1971. On the same day, the appellant was remanded to police custody for the purpose of investigation. P.W. 43, after completing the investigation, submitted a final report in both cases together charging the appellant with the offence of murder. The appellant was in due course committed to the Court of Session, Quilon to stand trial for the offence; and the Court of Session convicted and sentenced him as already stated. 12. P.W. 43, after completing the investigation, submitted a final report in both cases together charging the appellant with the offence of murder. The appellant was in due course committed to the Court of Session, Quilon to stand trial for the offence; and the Court of Session convicted and sentenced him as already stated. 12. There is no dispute that both Saralakumari and Shaubanath died as a result of consuming parathion, which is a highly poisonous organo-phosphorus compound. There is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with their death. His conviction is based solely on his confessional statement, Ext. P-42 and the circumstantial evidence. The question for consideration is whether the conviction can be sustained on the above evidence; or to put it differently whether the said evidence has established the crime against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The confessional statement is as follows:- I know one Saralakumari, d/o Velu Nair, resident of Padma Vilas, Mylakad, Kottiyam, Quilon, Kerala State and the other one Shaubanath, d/o Hanifa, resident of Visanazhikam, Mylakad, Kottiyam, Quilon, Kerala State. Both of them committed suicide on 21st May 1971 after 12 o'clock in the night by drinking the paramer poison by themselves which I had given with an intention of killing them. The story goes as follows:- "I had been giving tuition to these girls for the last three years and thereby they became too affectionate to me. Towards the end of last January 1971, both these girls told me about their decision to commit suicide because for some quarrels with their families. They requested for some help from me for the same. When I promised my help, they wanted to have some sexual intercourse with me and thereby I have had the same with both of them. They were continuing their requests for the help from me. As a result of this sexual intercourse, the above mentioned Saralakumari became pregnant. When she told me the fact, I managed to give her some medicines for abortion, none of which she used. She was ready to die in the same condition. Then I also thought of killing them. On 17th May 1971, I bought 100 c.c. of the above-mentioned paramer poison from a shop about 50 yds. east of one bridge named Kallupalam in Quilon in Kerala. Both these girls have been meeting me every day in the evening. She was ready to die in the same condition. Then I also thought of killing them. On 17th May 1971, I bought 100 c.c. of the above-mentioned paramer poison from a shop about 50 yds. east of one bridge named Kallupalam in Quilon in Kerala. Both these girls have been meeting me every day in the evening. I adjusted to give the poison on 20th May 1971 to both of them but because of some unfavourable circumstances, I could not do so. On 21st May 1971 at about 12.30 night, I reached Saralakumari's house. She was ready in her room with a plastic tumbler from her house and one window of her room opened. I received the tumbler and poured half of the poison into it and gave it to her. When she drank it for herself, I was sure of her death. Then I left her for the other girl. I reached the latter at about 12.45 night on the same day. She was also ready there in "her room and with one plastic tumbler from her house and one of the windows of her room opened. I poured the rest of the poison into the tumbler and gave it to her. When she drank the whole, I was sure of her death also. At about 1 o'clock I left her and walked to one of my relation's house about 12 miles away from that place. On the next day, I heard that both the girls had died. On 24th May 1971 the Police of Chathannoor P.S. questioned me about the death of these girls informally. On 26th of May 1971, I left Kerala. With an intention of committing suicide myself, on 30th May 1971 I reached Agra. I rented a room in Krishna Lodge near the Agra Fort Station. At about 9 o'clock in the night on the said day, I took twentyfive amargyl sleeping tablets. Before taking these tablets I had written a letter to one Suseela, d/o Pachan Nair, P.O. Vadakkevaril, Mylakad, Kottiyam, Quilon, Kerala State in which I had mentioned that I was the person who gave poison to the above girls. By taking the above tablets, I went into unconsciousness. The P.S., Sadaar Bazaar charged a case against me u/s 309 I.P.C. and in which I was convicted for seven days S.I. I give the statement voluntarily because I want to be severely punished. By taking the above tablets, I went into unconsciousness. The P.S., Sadaar Bazaar charged a case against me u/s 309 I.P.C. and in which I was convicted for seven days S.I. I give the statement voluntarily because I want to be severely punished. I have read over the above statement of mine and is correct." The above statement was proved by P.W. 40, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Agra. It shows that it has been recorded in compliance with the requirements of law. P.W. 40 stated that he visited the appellant on 2nd July 1971 and warned him that he was not bound to make any confession, and that the confession, if made, would be used against him that P.W. 40 gave him time to reflect over the matter till 5th July 1971, gave him the same warning again on that day, and that the confession was recorded after P.W. 40 was duly satisfied that it was voluntary. P.W. 40 was subjected to a long and searching cross-examination and nothing has been brought out to shake his evidence. The appellant in his examination under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code stated that P.W. 40 did not administer to, him any warning as deposed to by him and that the appellant made the statement as dictated by P.W. 42, the Quilon Sub Inspector of Police under threat and coersion, who was meeting the appellant in the Sub-jail at Agra from 26th June 1971 onwards till 5th July 1971. P.W. 42 denied having exerted any influence on, or given any inducement to, the appellant to make any confession. The appellant is an educated man. The Agra Police or Magistracy cannot in any way be interested or be a party in securing an illegal confession from the appellant. The circumstances in which the appellant was placed was such that, even if P.W. 42 was inclined to secure a forced confession from the appellant it was not possible, since P.W. 42 could not by himself administer any threat to the appellant who was in Sub-jail. The circumstances in which the appellant was placed was such that, even if P.W. 42 was inclined to secure a forced confession from the appellant it was not possible, since P.W. 42 could not by himself administer any threat to the appellant who was in Sub-jail. P.W. 20, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bazaar Station, Agra has deposed that the appellant was arrested by him on 1st June 1971 from District Hospital, Agra on a charge of attempt to commit suicide by consuming sleeping pills while staying at Sree Krishna Lodge, Agra, and that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge before the Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 30th June 1971, on the basis of which he was convicted by judgment Ext. P-22. The appellant admitted the above facts in his examination in the Court of Session under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, though he added that he did not take any sleeping pills or attempt to commit suicide. There is no reason for the Agra Police to concoct such a false case against the appellant. According to the evidence of P.W. 42, it was two days before the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of attempt to commit suicide that he informed P.W.42 of the desire to make a confession. That indicates that the appellant was then in a confessional mood. We feel no hesitation to accept the evidence of P.W. 40 and to hold that the confession was voluntary and that it was properly recorded by him. It was contended by counsel for the appellant that there was no valid reason for not recording the statement of the appellant from the court house, that P.W. 40 acted illegally in recording it from the Jail Superintendent's room in the jail premises and that the statement should be rejected on this ground. In support of that contention, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chardra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A. I. R. 1957 S. C.381. It is true that the confessional statement in that case was not acted on; but it was not on the sole ground that the confession was recorded from the jail premises. That was only one of the many circumstances which pursuaded the court not to act on the confession in that particular case. It is true that the confessional statement in that case was not acted on; but it was not on the sole ground that the confession was recorded from the jail premises. That was only one of the many circumstances which pursuaded the court not to act on the confession in that particular case. This decision itself is an authority for the proposition that recording of a confession from the jail premises is not an illegality; it is only an irregularity. Whether a conviction can be based on the confessional statement in the instant case, and if so what is the offence made out against the appellant are different questions, which we shall consider in the context of the other items of evidence against him. 13. The direct link to connect the accused with the crime is furnished by P.W. 6. He is a youngster aged 24 years. He is a neighbour of the appellant; and both of them belong to the same community. According to him, they are friends from the childhood; and they occasionally used to move about together in the night. He has deposed to the following facts. The appellant used to sleep in the Panchayat School shed. He used to go to Saralakumari and Shaubanath during certain nights. He has told that matter to the witness; and sometimes the witness also used to accompany him. Sometime before the occurrence, the appellant told the witness that the appellant suspected that Saralakumari was pregnant, that it should be aborted somehow, that she was a sister of the appellant, and that, if the public came to know about the pregnancy, the appellant would have to abscond from the place. The witness promised to help him; and both of them went to P.W. 21, a compounder of a local Ayurvedic Physician, and got some medicine, which was administered to Saralakumari twice. The appellant subsequently told the witness that the medicine had no effect, and that he suspected that Shaubanath was also pregnant. On the evening of 18th May 1971, that is three days before the date of occurrence, the appellant wanted the witness to accompany him to go to the neighbouring town of Quilon for buying a medicine for abortion of pregnancy. Both of them went to Quilon. The appellant got into a shop, keeping the witness outside; and he came out after buying something from there. Both of them went to Quilon. The appellant got into a shop, keeping the witness outside; and he came out after buying something from there. Then both of them returned to Mylakad by about 8 p. m. The appellant told the witness that the medicine may be kept at some place in the nearby temple. So both of them crossed over the wall of the temple; and the appellant kept the medicine at some place below the rafters of the temple building. Both of them then returned to their respective houses. On the night of 21st May 1971, both of them met each other at the Mylakad junction. They went to a tea-shop nearby, took tea from there and came to the Panchayat School shed. Then the appellant told the witness that he wanted to administer the medicine to the girls and that the witness should accompany him. The witness agreed; and both of them proceeded to the temple by about 12 midnight. The appellant took the medicine from the place where he had secreted it. Both of them went to the house of Saralakumari. The witness was made to stand at a distance. After about 10 to 15 minutes, the appellant returned from the house of P. W. 1, by which time the witness had moved towards the nearby junction. From there, both of them went to the house of Shaubanath. As before the witness was made to stand at a distance; and the appellant went towards the house. The witness waited for a sufficiently long time; and since he did not see the appellant, the witness returned home. In the morning he knew about the death of Saralakumari and Shaubanath and he naturally suspected that it must have happened as a result of the medicine given to them by the appellant. The witness went to the houses of Saralakumari and Shaubanath to attend to their funeral. The appellant was not seen at either of the places. The witness enquired for the appellant all over; but he was not seen or heard of anywhere in the locality. 14. The evidence of P.W.6 was attacked mainly on the ground that he is only an ordinary worker employed in loading goods in lorries and that a person of the educational and social status of the appellant would not associate with a person like P. W. 6. 14. The evidence of P.W.6 was attacked mainly on the ground that he is only an ordinary worker employed in loading goods in lorries and that a person of the educational and social status of the appellant would not associate with a person like P. W. 6. It was also contended that his whole evidence looked artificial, that his alleged association with the appellant in accompanying the appellant to buy the poison, to secret it and then to administer the same to the deceased girls made him an accomplice, and that he was, therefore, unworthy of credit. There is some force in this contention; and if his evidence stood alone, we would have hesitated to accept it. But his evidence is corroborated in material particulars. The post-mortem examination of Saralakumari disclosed that she was pregnant by twelve weeks. P. W. 21 who is a compounder of a local Ayurvedic Physician, has deposed that the appellant and P. W. 6 went to him sometime in the last week of March 1971 and asked him for some medicine to abort the pregnancy of a girl, that he supplied to the appellant some medicine for stomach pain, and that they went to him again after two weeks, saying that the medicine had no effect. The fact that Saralakumari and Shaubanath were class-mates and very thick friends, and that the appellant used to give them tuition is admitted by the appellant. It has also been firmly established in this case that the appellant was giving them both tuition from the house of Saralakumari, and that the appellant had close association with these girls. There is no evidence except that of P. W. 6 that the said association was illegitimate. At the same time, there is not even a suggestion that Saralakumari had any illegitimate association with anybody else. It is, therefore, probable that she got impregnated by the appellant. The witnesses in this case have been cross-examined at great length; but there was not even a suggestion from the defence counsel in the trial court that the appellant was associating himself with any person of educational and social status in that locality. On the other hand, the evidence is that he is a man of a peculiar temperament with a conspicuous moustache roaming about during the nights wearing a black shirt and a coloured dhoti; and sleeping usually in the school shed. On the other hand, the evidence is that he is a man of a peculiar temperament with a conspicuous moustache roaming about during the nights wearing a black shirt and a coloured dhoti; and sleeping usually in the school shed. He is unmarried, and belongs to a lower-middle class family with a fairly large membership. A person like P. W. 6 would, therefore, be a suitable companion for his mightly perambulations. If he was having association with these girls, it would have been difficult to keep it secret from a person like P.W. 6, as he is also to some extent a night wanderer. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in the appellant in taking P.W. 6 into confidence to some extent. 15. The Quilon shop from where the appellant was alleged to have purchased the medicine on 18th May 1971 was pointed out by P.W. 6 to the Investigating Officer. On that basis, P.W. 43 went to that shop along with P.W. 6 on 28th June 1971, interviewed its proprietor, P.W. 7, and recovered from there a bill book, Ext. P-7. Ext. P-6 is the mahazar relating to its recovery. Ext. P-8 in that book is bill No. 596 dated 18th May 1971 relating to the sale of 100 ml. of paramer. The name of the purchaser is not shown in that bill. P.W. 7 deposed that he did not remember the person who purchased paramer. He was, therefore, treated as hostile and confronted with the statement made by him to P.W. 43. The fact that P.W. 6 pointed out this shop, and that the bill book maintained, in that shop showed sale of paramer on the particular day on which the appellant is said to have gone to that shop along with P.W. 6 corroborates his evidence on that point. It is significant that the cause of death of the two girls was poisoning by paramer. There is also the evidence of P.W. 24 that the appellant enquired to him sometime in the middle of March 1971 whether paramer would kill a person and that the witness told him that it was a deadly poison. P.W. 24 is a B.Sc, B.Ed, and is a high school teacher in the same school where the appellant is employed. There is also the evidence of P.W. 24 that the appellant enquired to him sometime in the middle of March 1971 whether paramer would kill a person and that the witness told him that it was a deadly poison. P.W. 24 is a B.Sc, B.Ed, and is a high school teacher in the same school where the appellant is employed. He do not think that a person of his position would give false evidence against the appellant in a charge of murder against him. The evidence of P.W. 24 also lends some support to the prosecution case. 16. There is also other evidence regarding the movements of the appellant in the night of occurrence. P.W. 10 is a tea shop-keeper at Mylakad junction. He has deposed that at about 11 p.m. on that day the appellant went to his shop along with P.W. 6, took tea and went towards the north along the Kannanellur Road, which goes by the side of the Panchayat High School. P.W. 10 has further deposed that a little later, he saw the appellant and P.W. 6 going towards the south from the junction in the direction of Saralakumari's house, that at about 12.30 night, he heard P.W. 13, sister of P.W. 1 saying something, when he saw the appellant and P.W. 6 moving away from that place, and that about half an hour later he saw P.W. 1 coming out in great hurry and sending for a car saying that his daughter was not well. The house of P.W. 13 is 54 metres to the north-east of P.W. 1's house; and the junction where P.W. 10 has his tea-shop is about 100 metres from P.W. 1's house. So P.W. 10 is in a position to witness from his shop all the things he has deposed to. P.W. 11 is a dealer in coconut husk and is resident of the same village as that of the appellant. He knows the appellant as well as P.W. 6. He has deposed that between 10 and 12.30 on the night of 21st May 1971, he saw the appellant and P.W. 6 together going from Mylakad junction towards south along the road which passes by the side of Saralakumari's house. He knows the appellant as well as P.W. 6. He has deposed that between 10 and 12.30 on the night of 21st May 1971, he saw the appellant and P.W. 6 together going from Mylakad junction towards south along the road which passes by the side of Saralakumari's house. P.W. 13 has deposed that sometime after 10 p.m. on 21st May 1971, she came out of her house with a lantern to urinate her grant-child, when she saw man in black shirt and black dhoti moving away by the northern side of her house, that she asked him who he was, when the appellant answered that it was himself, and that sometime later she went to P.W. 1's house on hearing cries from that house, when she saw Saralakumari rolling in agony. P.W. 16 is an elderly person who resides on the western side of the house of Shaubanath. He has deposed that when he came out of his house at about mid-night on 21st May 1971, he saw a person wearing black-shirt and black-dhoti passing through the road by the side of his house, that he asked him who he was, when the appellant answered that it was himself and that the appellant is a person well-known to him. P.W. 17 is a person who resides 20 metres to the south of Shaubanath's house. He has deposed that he returned home after work on 21st May 1971 by about mid-night, that he saw one man coming out from the southern veranda of Shaubanath's house and going towards the west, when he asked him who he was, and that the appellant answered that it was himself. This witness has further stated that the appellant was well-known to him and that he has seen the appellant coming to Shaubanath's house on several occasions during day and night. 17. The evidence of the above witnesses fully corroborates the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding the movements of the appellant on the night of the occurrence. All these are persons who attended the funeral of Saralakumari and Shaubanath; and they have also deposed to the significant absence of the appellant at the houses of the deceased girls on that occasion. 17. The evidence of the above witnesses fully corroborates the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding the movements of the appellant on the night of the occurrence. All these are persons who attended the funeral of Saralakumari and Shaubanath; and they have also deposed to the significant absence of the appellant at the houses of the deceased girls on that occasion. The criticism levelled against their evidence is that, if what they deposed to was true, they would suspected the appellant as responsible for causing the death of the two girls and disclosed to the police the next day the fact that they saw the appellant in that night moving about in the above fashion. We are unable to accept the above criticism. The fact that the accused was seen moving about in that night by the side of the houses of Saralakumari and Shaubanath, and his notable absence at their funeral, when considered in the light of his relation with the deceased girls, would naturally raise suspicion about the conduct of the appellant; but they are not by themselves sufficient to incriminate the appellant for the death of the girls. The witnesses are not, therefore, likely to disclose unsolicitedly such matters to the police. That there was suspicion about the appellant's conduct is clear from the fact that P.W. 1 filed a petition to the Government on 30th May 1971, that is eight days after the occurrence, requesting the Government to have a proper police investigation conducted in the matter, though the cases had been apparently closed as suicide. We have given anxious consideration to the evidence of these witnesses. The trial judge has believed their evidence; and we do not see any reason to differ from him. 18. We shall now refer to the other items of evidence against the appellant. P.W. 12 is the brother-in-law of the son of P.W. 13. He was during the relevant time running a tea-shop at the Mylakad junction, and staying in the house of P.W. 13, which, as already mentioned, is 54 metres to the north-west of the house of Saralakumari. On 23rd May 1971, some boys pointed out to P.W. 12 a plastic tumbler lying by the side of a Panchayat well in the compound adjoining the house of P.W. 13. It was emanating a smell like that of kerosene; and some white froth was coming out of it. On 23rd May 1971, some boys pointed out to P.W. 12 a plastic tumbler lying by the side of a Panchayat well in the compound adjoining the house of P.W. 13. It was emanating a smell like that of kerosene; and some white froth was coming out of it. P.W. 12 buried it under the earth there. Later, when further investigation was started into the cause of the death of the two girls, P.W. 12 mentioned about the plastic tumbler to P.W. 1; and on 18th June 1971, he produced it before P.W. 39, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghathannur, who recovered it under a mahazar. M.O. 1 is the tumbler; and Ext. P-10 is the mahazar. M.O. 1 was sent for chemical examination; which showed parathion on the tumbler. Ext. P-37 is the certificate of chemical analysis. The above tumbler has been identified by P.W. 1 as belonging to him and the one used by Saralakumari. It is only a reasonable inference from the identity of the poison found to have been consumed by her and the one found on the tumbler, and the other Circumstances referred to above that this was the tumbler used by Saralakumari to consume poison on that fateful day. 19. On 13th July 1971, the appellant took P.W. 48, the investigating officer to a paddy field on the southwestern side of Shaubanath's house; dug out from the side of a bund an empty aluminium can in which parathion is ordinarily sold and a plastic tumbler, and produced them before P.W. 43. The appellant stated that he had secreted those articles at that place, while he was going away from the house of Shaubanath to a place called Ayilur in the night of 21st May 1971. The appellant's statement that he went to Ayilur from the house of Shaubanath on that night is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 18, who has deposed that, while he was returning home after seeing a cinema, he met the appellant at about 2 a.m. on 22nd May 1971 on the road and that the appellant told the witness that he was going to Ayilur. Examined in the light of other evidence and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to believe this witness. The articles produced by the appellant were taken into custody by P.W. 43 as per a mahazar, Ext. P-25 dated 13th July 1971. Examined in the light of other evidence and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to believe this witness. The articles produced by the appellant were taken into custody by P.W. 43 as per a mahazar, Ext. P-25 dated 13th July 1971. M.O. 4 is that plastic tumbler and M.O. 5 the aluminium can. M. Os. 4 and 5 were sent for chemical examination; and Ext. P-38 is the certificate of chemical analysis. It shows parathion on both the M.Os. P.W. 2 has identified M.O. 4 as the tumbler used by deceased Shaubanath. P.W. 7 has identified M.O. 5 as the container in which he sold parathion on 18th May 1971 as per the bill, Ext. P-8. It is a matter of plain inference from the above facts that M.O. 4 is the tumbler used by Shaubanath to consume parathion and M.O. 5 was the container of that poison. The recovery of the above objects on the basis of the information received from the appellant connects him with the purchase of the said poison from P.W. 7 and supply of the same to Shaubanath. In other words, it leads to the inference that it was the appellant who purchased parathion as per bill Ext. P-8, and made it available to Shaubanath, which undoubtedly caused her death. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence furnished by the statement made by the appellant to P.W. 43 and the recovery of the said. M.Os. on the basis of the said statement, for the reason that the recovery was made from an open place to which everybody can have access and it was made two months after the occurrence. The appellant's statement was recorded and the articles were recovered by P.W. 43 on the day the appellant was remanded to his custody, after being brought to Quilon from Agra. It is true that the place where the articles were buried is a paddy field to which any person has access; but the particular place where they were buried can be only in the special knowledge of the person who buried them at that place or those who have witnessed him doing it or to whom he has earlier disclosed that fact. The fact that the appellant knew this particular place shows that he belongs to the above category. The fact that the appellant knew this particular place shows that he belongs to the above category. There is no case for the appellant that he is one who has seen another person burying these articles at that place, or somebody else has told him about the secreting of those articles at that place. So the inference is that he is the person who secreted the said articles at that place. We are unable to accept a theory that the plastic tumbler used by Shaubanath for consuming parathion was planted at this place along with the emptied can container of the parathion by some person at the instance of the police and that the statement attributed to the appellant which lead to the production of the said two articles is a concoction. 20. P.W. 22 is a resident of Kilikollur, which is a village not far away from that of the appellant. The appellant and P.W. 22 were studying in the Karmala Rani Training College in the year 1967-68; and they were good friends. P.W. 22 is also a B. Ed. from that College. He is a cashier in the office of the Kerala Electricity Board at Kilikollur. On 25th May 1971, the appellant went to the house of P.W. 22 and lived with him. The appellant told the witness about the suicide of the two girls to whom he was giving tuition. He also told the witness that he was going to Calcutta to meet a friend, and left the witness on the night of 26th May 1971, taking with him a copy of an annual magazine published by the above college and belonging to the witness. The above facts have been admitted by the appellant. The articles which belonged to the appellant and which were found in his room in Sree Krishna Lodge, Agra when he was removed to the hospital for treatment on 31st May 1971 in an unconscious state were handed over by the management of the Lodge to the Agra Police, who sent them over to the Sub Magistrate, Quilon as per a list Ext. P-23. Those articles have been marked as M.Os. 6 to 27. The appellant admitted in his examination under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, his removal from the hotel to the hospital for treatment and the entrustment of his personal belongings to the Agra Police. P-23. Those articles have been marked as M.Os. 6 to 27. The appellant admitted in his examination under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, his removal from the hotel to the hospital for treatment and the entrustment of his personal belongings to the Agra Police. He also admitted that many of the articles among M.Os. 6 to 27 belonged to him; and that M.O. 19 is the magazine which he took away from the house of P.W. 22, which this witness has also proved. M.O. 24 is a sheet of paper in which the addresses of a few persons are written in English. M.O. 25 and M.O. 27 are two letters written in Malayalam. M.O. 26 is a postal envelope on which the address of one P. T. Susheela is written. P.W. 22 has deposed that he is familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, and that the writing in M.Os. 24 to 27 are in the hand of the appellant. He also stated that the signatures found in M.Os. 25 and 27 are of the appellant; but the appellant denied his hand in the said documents, and further stated that P.W. 22 was not competent to prove his handwriting. 21. Counsel for the appellant contended before us that there was no evidence that M.Os. 24, 25, 26 and 27 were the articles found in the room of the appellant in Sree Krishna Lodge at Agra. The learned State Prosecutor has reluctantly accepted this contention. The only evidence available in the case regarding M.Os. 6 to 27 is that they are articles sent over by the Agra Police to the Sub Magistrate's Court, Quilon, as articles entrusted by the proprietor of the Lodge with the Police, while the appellant was removed to the hospital for treatment. Neither the person who is alleged to have found those articles in the appellant's room and handed them over to the police, or the police officer who took them into custody and sent them over to the Quilon Court has been examined in the case. In the absence of their examination, there is no legal evidence about these matters. All that is available is that a number of articles (M.Os. 6 to 27) were sent over by the Agra Police to the Sub Magistrate., Quilon, and that the appellant has admitted that some of them belong to him. The connecting link is absent. In the absence of their examination, there is no legal evidence about these matters. All that is available is that a number of articles (M.Os. 6 to 27) were sent over by the Agra Police to the Sub Magistrate., Quilon, and that the appellant has admitted that some of them belong to him. The connecting link is absent. Counsel for the appellant has further contented that P.W. 22 is incompetent under law to prove the handwriting of the appellant. He referred us to section 47 of the Evidence Act, which reads:- "47. Opinion as to handwriting when relevant.-When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the hand writing of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.-A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. Illustration The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant though neither B, C or D ever saw A write." Counsel submitted that for a person to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person within the meaning of the above explanation, one of the following things should be satisfied,- 1. he has seen the other person write, 2. he has seen the other person write, 2. he has received documents purporting to be written by the other person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, and 3. documents purporting to be written by the other person have been habitually submitted to him in the ordinary course of business. It was submitted that none of these conditions is satisfied in the case of P.W. 22. Apparently the Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution in the trial court was ignorant of the requirements of section 47 of the Evidence Act to prove a handwriting or signature. He has not put any questions to P.W. 22 to establish that he was familiar with the handwriting of the appellant. But the omission has been made good by the cross-examination, in which the witness stated that he has seen the appellant writing when they were together in the college, and they were exchanging letters till about two years back. The result is that P.W. 22 has proved according to law the handwriting of the appellant in M.Os. 24 to 27 and his signatures in M.Os. 25 and 27. It is elementary that documents proved in a case should be marked as exhibits; and the marking of the above documents as material objects is another indication of the ignorance of the procedure on the part of the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judge had also the responsibility to mark the above documents as exhibits. It was argued by counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W. 22 regarding his competancy to prove the handwriting of the appellant is meagre, and that it should not be accepted. This argument could have been easily avoided by proving the appellant's admitted handwritings and signatures and examining persons who would have been far more competent to prove them. As the appellant is a teacher in the local high school, there would have been no difficulty in examining such witnesses. No question about those matters was put even to P.W. 24, who is a teacher in that school, and who was examined to prove the enquiry which the appellant is alleged to have made to him about two months before the occurrence regarding the poisonous character of paramer. The handwriting in M.Os. 25 and 27 discloses a style of its own, and the signatures therein are very prominent. The handwriting in M.Os. 25 and 27 discloses a style of its own, and the signatures therein are very prominent. They are of an impressive character. P.W. 22 had ample opportunities to be acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the appellant. We accept his evidence and come to the conclusion that M.Os. 24 to 27 are in the handwriting of the appellant, and that M.Os. 25 and 27 contain his signature. 22. If M.Os. 24 to 27 are established to be in the handwriting of the appellant, it is not of much consequence in this case wherefrom the Agra Police got them. P.T. Susheela, whose address is written in M.O. 26 is P.W. 9, who was a colleague of the deceased girls and is one of those girls to whom the appellant was giving tuition. M.O. 25 is a very important document which establishes beyond doubt the involvement of the appellant in the death of Saralakumari and Shaubanath. It is written to Susheela, who is obviously P.W. 9; and M.O. 26 is the addressed postal envelope in which it was intended to be sent to her. The following would be more or less a correct translation of that letter. "(Have patience to read the whole!) To Susheela-Darling, Annan is not sorry for this situation of having to pass away, without being able to say a word to you! Take it that my child's request to wreak at least some vengeance against you is also achieved by this. You were her intimate friend. It is you too, who prevented me, who had taken the decision to destruct oneself years ago, from doing so till this time. To make it a little clearer, it was my child. I am happy that I am going away after showing her full gratitude. I have not done anything to repent. This is Agra, the town of Taj Mahal! I have seen it. There is nothing to say. Hereafter, you will be the only person who has fully realised the greatness of Annan. I have nothing to say about your quarrel. It is only that you showed a little selfishness. Do not give up that consciousness of the self!-to act the drama of life here. Finally I have only to say that you must live. Hereafter, you will be the only person who has fully realised the greatness of Annan. I have nothing to say about your quarrel. It is only that you showed a little selfishness. Do not give up that consciousness of the self!-to act the drama of life here. Finally I have only to say that you must live. Annan is going (It is by consuming the poison that I poured over at 12.30 night that both of them died) (Signature) Destroy this! Do not speak to anybody. " The letter is a little poetic and emotional, as it should be. "Annan" means brother; and it is obvious from the Malayalam version of the letter that by this term, the appellant is referring to himself. The letter speaks for itself; and it is clear therefrom that it is one written by the appellant to P.W. 9 immediately before his attempt to commit suicide from Sree Krishna Lodge at Agra; and that the reference to the poison which he poured over at 12.30 night is to the parathion which the appellant poured over into the plastic tumblers of Saralakumari and Shaubanath on the mid-night of 21st May 1971 at Mylacaud. 23. We shall now sum up the circumstantial evidence against the appellant. He was closely associated with Saralakumari and Shaubanath, who were life-long friends. The appellant used to visit both of them during night and day. Saralakumari became pregnant; and some medicine was given to her twice to abort her pregnancy without any effect. The appellant might have suspected that Shaubanath was also pregnant. If those things came to light, he would not be able to live in that place. On 18th May 1971, he purchased parathion from P.W. 7, which he secreted in the temple building. On the night of 21st May 1971, he took that poison from that place, went to Saralakumari's house first, and then to Shaubanath's house, saying that he was going to them for giving some medicine for abortion. The girls consumed parathion in the same night and both of them died within a very short time. The appellant escaped from the place immediately; and he did not go to the houses of any one of the girls to attend their funeral. On the 25th, he went to his friend P.W. 22 in a neighbouring village, and stayed with him. The appellant escaped from the place immediately; and he did not go to the houses of any one of the girls to attend their funeral. On the 25th, he went to his friend P.W. 22 in a neighbouring village, and stayed with him. He left that place the next day saying that he was going to Calcutta to meet a friend of his; but he really went to Agra, which place he reached on 30th May 1971. He took a room in Sree Krishna Lodge, and attempted to commit suicide by taking over-dose of sleeping pills. Before doing so, he wrote the letter M.O. 25 to P.W. 9, which clearly indicates that it was the appellant who provided the poison to the two girls to commit suicide, and that he was also going to commit suicide from Agra, the city of TajMahal. These things by themselves clearly establish that it was the appellant who secured parathion to the two girls for ending their lives; and that the girls died as a result of consuming the said poison. 24. The confessional statement of the appellant may be examined in the above background. The material particulars in the confessional statement of the appellant are- (1) The appellant was having sexual intercourse with Saralakumari and Shaubanath; and Saralakumari became pregnant. (2) He gave her medicine to abort the pregnancy with no effect. (3) On 17th May 1971, he purchased 100 c.c. of parathion from a shop about 50 yards to the east of Kallupalam bridge in Quilon. (4) On 21st May 1971 at about 12.30 night, he went to Saralakuruari's house, and poured a part of that parathion into her plastic tumbler for her to consume. (5) Immediately after that, he went to the house of Shaubanath and poured the remaining part of the parathion into her plastic tumbler for her to consume. (6) On 26th May 1971, he left Kerala and came to Agra on 30th May 1971, where he stayed in Sree Krishna Lodge. In the following night, he took sleeping tablets to commit suicide. (7) Before taking the sleeping tablets, he wrote a letter to P.W. 9, wherein he had mentioned that he gave the poison to the girls. All the above facts have been substantially established by the evidence to which we have already referred. In the following night, he took sleeping tablets to commit suicide. (7) Before taking the sleeping tablets, he wrote a letter to P.W. 9, wherein he had mentioned that he gave the poison to the girls. All the above facts have been substantially established by the evidence to which we have already referred. The shop from which the appellant purchased parathion was obviously that of P.W. 7; but the purchase was on 18th May 1971 and not on 17th May 1971; and this is evident from the sale bill, Ext. P-8. It is also obvious that M.O. 25 is the letter referred to by the appellant in the above statement. Thus the confessional statement is substantially corroborated by other evidence. This is sufficient to act on the confession and to enter a conviction on its basis. In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R.1963 S.C. 1094 the Supreme Court stated :- "A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars." The above decision has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 349. 25. Counsel for the appellant contended that the statement should be considered as a whole, and if so considered, it contains certain facts which are obviously improbable, if not untrue, and that the statement should, therefore, be rejected as a whole. Counsel referred to that part of the statement in Ext. P-42. 25. Counsel for the appellant contended that the statement should be considered as a whole, and if so considered, it contains certain facts which are obviously improbable, if not untrue, and that the statement should, therefore, be rejected as a whole. Counsel referred to that part of the statement in Ext. P-42. wherein the appellant stated.- “Towards the end of last January 1971, both these girls told me about their decision to commit suicide because of some quarrels with their families. They requested some help from me for the same. When I promised my help, they wanted to have some sexual intercourse with me, and thereby I have had the same with both of them." The prosecution has no case that anyone of the girls had any family quarrels. The evidence is to the contrary effect. It is also highly improbable that the girls who wanted to commit suicide wanted the appellant to have sexual intercourse with them in consideration of his securing them the poison to commit suicide. But the fact that an accused has mixed up some false statements in his confession is no ground to reject it as a whole. The statement has to be considered as a whole, and that part of it which is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence would be accepted and acted on. Ext. P-42 contains a confession in very clear terms that the appellant supplied the two girls, with parathion for them to commit suicide as desired by them. It was contended by counsel for the appellant that the corroborative evidence available in this case is of no value, since it was obtained in the light of the confessional statement of the appellant. This contention is not factually correct. Most of the witnesses were interviewed by the investigating officer, before the appellant's confession was recorded. Corroborative evidence gathered after the confession was recorded is also valuable evidence, provided it is credible. 26. The next question for consideration is what is the offence made out on the facts established in the case. The trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. on the finding that it is the appellant who administered poison to the two girls with intent to cause their death. 26. The next question for consideration is what is the offence made out on the facts established in the case. The trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302, I.P.C. on the finding that it is the appellant who administered poison to the two girls with intent to cause their death. To administer poison to a person with intent to cause death is vastly different from procuring or providing poison to a person to enable him to commit suicide. The confessional statement shows that this was a case where the girls wanted to commit suicide and the appellant secured them the poison for achieving that object, it may be that the appellant was also a party to that decision; and he also wanted to commit suicide, as he was responsible to create the miserable situation for those young girls, whom he seemed to have liked and loved. There is also nothing in evidence to show that the appellant administered the poison to them with intent to cause their death, except the statement of P.W. 6, who has deposed that the appellant told him that the appellant was going to administer medicine to the girls for aborting their pregnancy, while he actually gave them parathion which caused their immediate death. It may be that the appellant told P.W. 6 like that, so as to have his company on that fateful night. At any rate, it does not show that the appellant practised any deception on the girls, and gave parathion under a false pretext that it was a medicine for abortion of pregnancy. This is also improbable at least in the case of Shaubanath, who was not obviously pregnant; and there is nothing in evidence to suspect that she was. On the other hand, the fact that both the girls were keeping awake, as if waiting for the appellant to come with the poison, that they consumed the poison one after another almost simultaneously and they were ready with their own cups to receive the poison shows that the whole transaction was pursuant to a triparte agreement, and that the appellant provided the girls with poison for enabling them to commit suicide. The statement in Ext. The statement in Ext. P-42 that when he went to Saralakumari and Shaubanath with the poison, each girl was ready in her room with the plastic tumbler, that each of them opened the window of her room and showed her tumbler for the appellant to pour the poison into it is a telling one; and that was the climax of the tragic drama. The offence is clearly one of abetment of suicide. Both the girls were admittedly above the age of 18 years; and the offence therefore falls under section 306 I.P.C. The appellant is a young and educated man. The fact that he agreed to provide poison to these girls to commit suicide and he also decided to abscond from that place and commit suicide shows that he is a highly emotional type of person. If he was a villainous character, he would have left the girls to their own fate and looked after his own business. The crime was committed under great mental strain with a view to end their lives rather than living. The parents of the girls who let them loose in the company of the appellant are to a large extent responsible for development of the situation which culminated in this tragedy. The appellant has already suffered jail-life fore more than nine months. Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. It may not be inappropriate to record here a word of appreciation for the thorough and fair manner in which the whole case has been investigated and the crime has been brought to light. 27. In the result, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. We hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence under section 306 I.P.C; and we sentence him for that offence to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is disposed of accordingly; and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.