Judgment :- Arunachalam. J. This case has a chequered history. Apart from the appellant, two persons were allegedly concerned in this gruesome murder, of two persons, viz. Subbammal and Gurusamy Naicker, who will be henceforth referred to as D-1 and D-2. Those two persons are Subburaj (since deceased as it is evidence that he had committed suicide on 30.8.1982) and Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu. Of these two persons, Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu was charged only for conspiracy, while Subburaj had allegedly cut both the deceased with an aruval in the company of the appellant. Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu was tried alone, for conspiracy in S.C. No.230 of 1986 on the file of the same trial Judge, since at that point of time the case against the appellant had to be split up, since he was absconding. It appears in evidence that on conclusion of trial in S.C. No.230 of 1986, Africa Naidu was acquitted, since there was no worthwhile evidence to establish the charge of conspiracy. 2. There was one another hurdle as well. Before the final report could be laid in this prosecution on 112. 1985, by P.W.20 Jamdiction, Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Kamarajar District. P.W.18 Subbiah, who had initially taken up investigation in the impugned crime on 28. 1982, had chosen to refer the crime as mistake of fact even on 38. 1982 as against the appellant, while closing the case against Subburaj, on account, that due to his having committed suicide, the charge against his stood abated. It is rather intriguing as to how within two days P.W.18 Subbiah was able to refer the case against the appellant as mistake of fact in spite of two eye witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1 and 2 having clearly mentioned during his investigation that it was the appellant and Subburaj, who had attacked both the deceased mercilessly with aruvals leading to their deaths. The statement of D-2 before his death (Ex.P-13) and the first information report also contained the said clear detail, which was certainly within the awareness of P.W.18. In Ex.P-16, which is the referred report, P.W.18 has given a clean chit to the appellant on the ground that he was at Madurai at the relevant time and not at Narayanapuram, the scene of occurrence. In Ex.P-16, which is the referred report, P.W.18 has given a clean chit to the appellant on the ground that he was at Madurai at the relevant time and not at Narayanapuram, the scene of occurrence. He has stated in his report that the alibi witnesses had stated that the appellant was at Kasiram Lodge, Madurai, and it was verified and was found to be correct. None of the statements of those alibi witnesses, appear to have been forwarded to the Magistrate, along with the referred report. 3. As a matter of fact, the report of P.W.6, Ranold Princely then Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sattur, marked as Ex.P-15, will reveal that he summoned the case diary, which on receipt was found to contain 159 pages. The court records contained only 73 pages. To his dismay, he found, that statement of Gurusamy (D-2) received in Court at 7.30 p.m. on 28. 1982 along with the inquest report relating to D-1, was not available in the case diary, maintained at the police station. Further, certain statements found in the case diary were not despatched to the Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has further observed, that statements had been obtained from many persons, which do not bear any date or those which contained the dates as 28. 1982, were not received in court. It is further shocking to note, from the report of P.W.6 that Rajamani, a Head Constable of Sivakasi police station, made attempts to remove the statement of Gurusamy from the court records and failed miserably due to the alertness of the court staff. It is abundantly clear that whatever may be the reason there was an attempt to close the prosecution, even at the threshold and Ex.P-16 clearly leaves an indelible impression, that with an ulterior motive, this case of double murder was sought to be hushed up, in a most crude manner. 4. It did shock us, when Mr.R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of instructions submitted that P.W.18, who faced a departmental enquiry, on the foundation of this referred chargesheet, was exonerated and promoted as well. Though, unfortunately for him, due to certain other investigation lapses, similar to this, he is now under suspension. 4. It did shock us, when Mr.R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of instructions submitted that P.W.18, who faced a departmental enquiry, on the foundation of this referred chargesheet, was exonerated and promoted as well. Though, unfortunately for him, due to certain other investigation lapses, similar to this, he is now under suspension. Officers like P.W.18, would dent the reputation of the Police Force as a whole, and after enquiry, which shall be conducted in all seriousness, if the charge is established, people like him, will have to be sent out from service, for that alone will ensure the confidence of the public in the police investigation system. At the same time, we are bound to place on record, our appreciation for P.W.6 Ranold Princely, the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sattur, who was not prepared to accept the referred chargesheet and promptly took steps to have further investigation conducted, by communicating to the concerned Superintendent of Police. We were told, that this Magistrate is now dead. Though posthumous, our appreciation shall be placed on record. 5. Since the judgment of learned trial Judge in S.C. No.230 of 1986 had not been brought on record in the instant prosecution, we sent for it from the Registry. Since it was not readily available, we commenced dictation of this Judgment. At this stage, a copy of the judgment, in the earlier sessions case was made available. We have perused the said judgment, and we are happy to state that the learned trial Judge, who disposed of S.C. No.230 of 1986, was fully conscious of the unreasonable and probably motivated referring of the crime, as mistake of fact insofar as it concerned the appellant and terminating of the case against Subburaj on the basis of some dead body, not proved to be that of Subburaj. The observations of the then trial Judge, that no action was taken by the superior Police Officers on the basis of Ex.P-15 forwarded by P.W.6, does rather, pain us. We find that several petitions addressed to higher authorities were forwarded to P.W.18 himself, who was able to stick on to his initial stand and reject all such petitions. However, as truth ought to prevail, ultimately, reopening of the investigation ordered by the then Superintendent of Police, resulted in a final report being laid by P.W.20. We find that several petitions addressed to higher authorities were forwarded to P.W.18 himself, who was able to stick on to his initial stand and reject all such petitions. However, as truth ought to prevail, ultimately, reopening of the investigation ordered by the then Superintendent of Police, resulted in a final report being laid by P.W.20. That judicial conscience will stand disturbed on the facts placed by us in the last few paragraphs, cannot brook a discordant note. 6. Now let us turn to the relevant facts, which led to this prosecution. Before stating the facts, it is necessary to mention, that four charges were framed against the appellant in S.C. No.223 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The first two charges were framed under Sec.120-B, I.P.C. alleging that the appellant along with Africa Naidu and Subburaj entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder D-1 and D-2 respectively. Charges 3 and 4 stood framed for murder of D-1 and D-2 with the aid of Sec.34, I.P.C. alleging that in pursuance of the conspiracy, coupled with common intention appellant and another caused the death of D-1 and D-2 on the midnight of 28. 1982 at 1 a.m. and 1.15 a.m. respectively. On conclusion of trial, appellant was acquitted, on the charges of conspiracy, but was found guilty under Sec.302 read, with Sec.34, I.P.C. (two counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under each count, substantive sentences to run concurrently. 7. P.W.1 Krishnammal is the daughter of D-1 Subbammal, born through Gurusamy Thevar, since dead. The said Gurusamy Thevar died about 20 years prior to the instant occurrence. After the death of Gurusamy Thevar, D-1 commenced living with D-2 Gurusamy Naicker. P.W.2 Naranammal was born to D-1 through D-2. Appellant as well as Subburaj, were admittedly workers under Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu. It appears that about a month prior to the occurrence, when D-1 was not in town and P.W.2 was alone in her residence, at or about 11 p.m. this appellant and Subburaj tapped at the outer door of the house of both the deceased. When P.W.2 questioned the cause for such tapping, they informed her, that Africa Naidu had sent Rs. 100 through them to bring her to his house, obviously for a purpose not moral. When P.W.2 questioned the cause for such tapping, they informed her, that Africa Naidu had sent Rs. 100 through them to bring her to his house, obviously for a purpose not moral. P.W.2 shouted at them from tapping the door at an untimely hour in the absence of her mother. Such shouting made the appellant and another shirk away from the job entrusted to them by Africa Naidu. This incidence was brought to the notice of D-1 by P.W.2. On the next occasion when Africa Naidu was passing through her residence, D1 questioned his conduct in trying to tempt away P.W.2, through his henchment. Africa Naidu claimed that he had not indulged in any such activity and went away. Four days prior to occurrence, when D-1 was lying down on a cot, outside her residence and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were lying down in the car shed of Panchavarnam, this appellant, Subburaj and Rajadurai, who is none else than the younger brother of Africa Naidu, burst crackers near the cot where D-1 was lying down. They also similarly lighted crackers near the school verandah, where D-2 had taken bed. D-1 shouted and all the three trouble shooters left the scene. On the next morning Subburaj came near the house of the deceased when D-1 beat him with a broomstick, while D-2 beat him with hands. A panchayat ensued in which Africa Naidu promised to give his verdict in or about two days. 8. It is in this background, that the impugned occurrence had taken place at or about 1 a.m. on the night of 28/28. 1982. As usual, D-l was sleeping on the cot outside her house. P.Ws. 1 and 2 taken their beds nearby. As was the custom, D-2 was sleeping in the verandah of the nearby school. P.W.3 Kalimuthu, husband of P.W.1 was allegedly sleeping inside the house of D-1. Suddenly P.Ws. 1 and 2 heard the hue and cry of D-l, which instinctively awakened them. Both of them saw the appellant and Subburaj inflicting several cuts indiscriminately on various parts of the body of D-1 with two different aruvals they wielded. Soon after cutting D-1, both of them, escaped through a lane. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were able to identify the assailants of deceased, since there was an electric lamp burning near their house and there was a little moon light as well at that time. Soon after cutting D-1, both of them, escaped through a lane. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were able to identify the assailants of deceased, since there was an electric lamp burning near their house and there was a little moon light as well at that time. While running away, appellant fell down near a neem tree, swiftly got up, and ran away. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 neared D-1, they found her dead. P.W.1, who was shocked and dismayed, rushed towards the school to bring down her father to the scene. As she was running, she heard the alarm raised by her father, who then was running towards her. This appellant and Subburaj with their respective aruvals indiscriminately cut D-2, resulting in the latter falling down near the cart-track with bleeding injuries. Appellant and another escaped northwards. D-2 was then alive and he made an oral dying declaration to P.W.1 and P.W.8 Stalin Mani, an independent witness, a little later, implicating the appellant and another as his assailants. P.W.1 arrived at the scene and informed P.W.2 about the appellant and another having murdered their father, D-2 as well. 9. P.W.8 Stalin Mani, a good Samaritan, and totally an independent witnesses, on becoming aware at or about 3 a.m. on that fateful night about the murder of both the deceased, contacted P.WS. 1 and 2 and questioned D-2, who was then alive and learned the persons who were responsible for causing injuries on him and those connected with the murder of D-1. Hectically P.W.8 contacted over the telephone Sivakasi East Police Station where only a para constable was available, who replied, that only at or about dawn, police action would be possible. He then telephoned to the Inspector of Police, which call as well resulted in a similar reply. The policemen arrived at the scene only around 5 a.m., so the Fire Service, to whom P.W.8 had telephoned. D-2 was taken in an ambulance to Government Hospital, Sivakasi, while D-1’s dead body was removed in a tractor. 10. It was P.W.1, who preferred Ex.P-1 the complaint, which is the foundation, for initiation of investigation, in this prosecution. Ex.P-1 apparently was recorded at the police station at or about 5 a.m. P.W.16 Rangarajan, then Sub-Inspector of Police. On Ex.P-1, P.W.16 registered Crime No. 104/82 under Secs.307 and 302, I.P.C. and prepared the express first information report, Ex.P-10. 10. It was P.W.1, who preferred Ex.P-1 the complaint, which is the foundation, for initiation of investigation, in this prosecution. Ex.P-1 apparently was recorded at the police station at or about 5 a.m. P.W.16 Rangarajan, then Sub-Inspector of Police. On Ex.P-1, P.W.16 registered Crime No. 104/82 under Secs.307 and 302, I.P.C. and prepared the express first information report, Ex.P-10. The original first information report and the copies thereof were forwarded to the concerned Magistrate and to Superior Police Officers. P.W.16 who proceeded to the scene, sent away injured D-2 to the hospital, for treatment. P.W.18 Subbian, on receipt of a copy of the first information report at or about 6.30 a.m. on 28. 1992, reached the venue of crime at 7 a.m., where he prepared Ex.P-18, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P-22, the scene sketch. He held inquest over the corpse of D-1 between 7.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., during the course of which, the examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and others, Ex.P-11 is the inquest report. At or about 10.45 a.m. from the scene place, he recovered coir cot, M.O. 3 bloodstained pillow (M.O.4), bloodstained earth (M.O.6) and sample earth (M.O.7) under Ex.P-19 mahazar. At 11.15 a.m. from the place where injured D-2 had failed down, he seized bloodstained cement pieces (M.Os.5, 8 and 9) under mahazar, Ex.P.20. He then proceeded to Government Hospital, Sivakasi, examined D-2 and recorded his statement Ex.P-13, which on the death of D-2, has now assumed the status of a dying declaration. P.W.18 received Ex.P. intimating the death of D-2 at 12.30 p.m. on 28. 1982. On receipt of the said intimation, he altered the crime in respect of D-2 as well, under Sec.302, I.P.C. and forwarded express report, Ex.P-14 to all those concerned. Between 1.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. he held inquest over the corpse of D-2, during the course of which, he examined the same witnesses he had enquired during the earlier inquest. Ex.P-12 is the inquest report. Both the corpses were sent for conduct of post-mortem. 11. P.W.5 Dr.Ravi Narayanan commenced postmortem on the dead body of D-1 at 3.30 p.m. on 28. 1982 and found the following external and internal injuries: External Injuries: .(1) An incised wound 10 cm. x 5 cm. x 2 cm. obliquely placed, on the anterior and medical aspect of left fore-arm at the junction of middle third with lower third. Compound fracture of ulna at this level. 1982 and found the following external and internal injuries: External Injuries: .(1) An incised wound 10 cm. x 5 cm. x 2 cm. obliquely placed, on the anterior and medical aspect of left fore-arm at the junction of middle third with lower third. Compound fracture of ulna at this level. .(2) Amputation of the right hand at the level of lower half of the matacarpal, the 2nd to 5th metacarpals were severed. The amputated portion is loosely attached to the rest of the hand by a small tag of skin attached on the lateral aspect of the hand. .(3) Incised wound 20.5 cm.x 3 cm. x bone deep on the right of the scalp extending downwards from the mid line to the level of right ear. Compound fracture of the right half of the frontal bone was present. Both plates of the bone was fractured. .(4) Incised wound over the middle of the right clavicle 2 cm.x 1 cm. fracture of right clavicle in its middle. .(5) Incised wound 24 cm. x 2 cm. x 5 cm. over the right half of the back extending from the shoulder tip to the medial border of right scapula at the level of acromion process. .(6) Incised wound 25 cm. x 2 cm. x 5 cm. parallel and above injury No.5. .(7) Incised wound 28 cm. x 5 cm. x 10 cm. extending from the shoulder hip (right) to the medial border to the left scapula parallel and above injury No.6. This injury is deeper on the lateral aspect than its medial side. Fracture of T1 thoracic I. Vertebral was present. Spinal cord was cut at the same level. It was completely served. He found partly digested rice particles in the stomach contents, Ex.P-9 is the postmortem certificate. In the opinion of the Doctor, D-1 would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and specifically due to injury No.7. Injury No.7 was necessarily fatal. All the injuries found on D-1 could have been caused by an aruval. Death should have been instantaneous. 12. P.W.4 Mancharan commenced autopsy on the dead body of D-2 at 4.45 p.m. on 28. 1982 and found the following injuries: .(1) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x skin deep on the dorseum of left hand over the base of left index finger. .(2) Sutured wound 6 cm. Death should have been instantaneous. 12. P.W.4 Mancharan commenced autopsy on the dead body of D-2 at 4.45 p.m. on 28. 1982 and found the following injuries: .(1) Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x skin deep on the dorseum of left hand over the base of left index finger. .(2) Sutured wound 6 cm. on the dorsum of left hand, oblique in direction medial to injury No. 1. .(3) Incised would 1 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the back of lower third of left fore-arm. .(4) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the back of left fore-arm in the middle third ulna is also cut, not completely fractured. .(5) Sutured lacerated wound irregular in shape 10 cms. in length in the laternal end posterior aspect of left arm and shoulder. .(6) Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the lateral aspect of upper third of left leg. .(7) Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep on the left knee. .(8) Sutured wound 6 cm. in length on the dorsum of right hand. Oblique in direction extending from the wrist to the base of thumb. On opening the wound compound fracture of I metocarpal was seen. .(9) Incised wound 18 cm. x 10 cm. x 3 cm. on the anterior aspect of right arm. Cutital forsa and fore-arm. Oblique in direction. Muscles and blood vessels were cut. .(10) Incised wound on the left side of back of chest 17 cm. x 6 cm. x 4 cm. vertical in direction extending downwards from the root of neck. .(11) Incised wound 10 cm. x 3 cm. x 4 cm. transverse in direction over the left scapula. .(12) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm.x skin deep just above the left ankle on the medial aspect of left leg (due to open method of transfusion). In the opinion of the Doctor, D-2 would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple injuries. All the injuries found on D-2 could have been caused by an aruval. Those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. It was the same Doctor, who had initially examined D-2 at 7.50 a.m. when he found him not in a position to talk. All the injuries found on D-2 could have been caused by an aruval. Those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. It was the same Doctor, who had initially examined D-2 at 7.50 a.m. when he found him not in a position to talk. Ex.P-3 a copy of the accident register, discloses the injuries noticed then by the Medical Officer, which fairly correspond to the injuries noticed subsequently during post-mortem. Ex. P-7 is the postmortem certificate. 13. P.W. 18 claims to have had information at or about 4.28 a.m. on 30.8.1982 that Subburaj, one of the accused in the crime, had committed suicide, by falling before the running train near Thiruthankal. He examined P.W. 13, Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, who had registered Crime No.457 of 1982 under Sec.174 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He discovered that the dead body was that of a male. There was an aruval by the side of the rails. P.W.18 also noticed on the dead body a shirt, which indicated stitching of the same, by a tailor at Sivakasi. Though there was no proper identification of the dead body as that of Subburaj, P.W.18 concluded that Subburaj, one of the accused in the crime, had committed suicide and hence the case against him stood abated. As far as the appellant is concerned, he claims to have had information that he was staying at Kasiram Lodge at the relevant time along with K.V.Raj, who had booked a room in the said lodge. He claims to have recorded a statement as well from the appellant, before preparing his report, Ex.P-16, exonerating the appellant, by concluding that his implication was a mistake of fact, and also excluding Subburaj, on the basis of abatement of charge. He appears to have had the tacit consent of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, to close the case. However, as stated earlier, P.W.6 was not prepared to accept the report and though no action was taken to recommence investigation, on the basis of his report, ostensibly a reinvestigation was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, resulting ultimately in the prosecution of the appellant and Africa Naidu, though separately. P.W.18 was treated hostile in this prosecution. 14. P.W.7 Veerapandian, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, received a communication from the Superintendent, that investigation in this crime, was not proper and required his report. P.W.18 was treated hostile in this prosecution. 14. P.W.7 Veerapandian, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, received a communication from the Superintendent, that investigation in this crime, was not proper and required his report. He claims to have enquired into the matter and forwarded his report to the Superintendent of Police by a communication G-1/36263/82, which of course has not been exhibited. However, we have the evidence of P.W.17 Muthumani, then Inspector of Police C.B., C.I.D., Ramanathapuram District, that he was instructed orally by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the District Superintendent of Police to commence reinvestigation in this crime, which he did between 110. 1984 and 11. 1984. He re-examined the witnesses. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.19 Somasekaran, on and from 112. 1984. After scrutinizing the investigation already done by P.W.17, he collected further material during his investigation till 9. 1984, subsequent to which P.W.20 Jamdiction, was put incharge. He had the witnesses examined by a Magistrate under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was P.W.19 who arrested the appellant and Africa Naidu on 18. 1985. He has spoken about the acquittal of Africa Naidu, after trial in S.C. No.230 of 1986, which has been referred to by us earlier. He has also deposed about the appellant absconding after getting himself released on bail. His evidence discloses, that there was no indication whatever to show about the appellant having stayed in a lodge at Madurai along with K.V.Raj, on the date of occurrence day or even before or thereafter. He had seized the lodge records and examined the owner of the lodge as well. It was left to P.W.20 to complete the investigation and lay the chargesheet on 112. 1985. 15. We must also state, that P.W.10 Rajeswaran and P.W.11 Rajagopal, residents of Madurai, were put into the witnesses box, to dispel the unfortunate incorrect record, prepared by P.W.18, as though the appellant had a good alibi, to get out of the clutches of this prosecution. P.W.10 Rajeswaran, owner of a shop dealing in automobiles spare parts, has spoken about his having sold certain parts to an automobile bearing registration No.T.N.R.7077 on 28. 1982, through a receipt, the number of which he has mentioned, obviously for the tractor of Africa Naidu. He is certain, that no part was sold on 28. 1982, for the said vehicle, from his shop. 1982, through a receipt, the number of which he has mentioned, obviously for the tractor of Africa Naidu. He is certain, that no part was sold on 28. 1982, for the said vehicle, from his shop. He had produced the counterfoils of the receipts, before the court, to affirm his oral version. Though connection between the appellant and P.W.10 was not sought to be made in the examination in chief, the appellant has elicited in cross-examination, that it was the appellant who used to obtain spare parts for Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu. P.W.10 has specifically denied that the appellant had obtained spare part on 28. 1982 from his shop. 16. P.W.11, Rajagopal, a lawyer by profession, is the owner of Kasiram Lodge at Madurai. He has produced his lodge register, Ex.P-17, and has affirmed that his register is maintained in the usual course of business. He is certain that either on 28. 1982 or on 28. 1982 none by name Kitchappan alias Siniraj had stayed in his lodge either in room No.6 or room No.7. There was no entry in the said register for those rooms and without entries none will be allowed to stay in any of the rooms. While cross-examined, he has agreed that on 28. 1982 K.V. Raju of Aruppukkottai had taken a room in his lodge and stayed there along with his wife till 4.45 p.m. that day. After that, till 38. 1982 none else had stayed in that room, viz. room No.7 and Ex.P-17 does not bear any entries. It was only on 9. 1982, that room was occupied by R.Lakshmanan of Madras. He has specifically denied, that between 28. 1982 and 30.8.1982 appellant had stayed in room No.7 of his lodge. As stated earlier, the final report was laid against African Naidu and the appellant. Appellant alone faced this prosecution, due to his earlier abscondance. Africa Naidu, as we have already stated, was acquitted in the earlier trial. 17. When the appellant was examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime, and went on to add, that though he was employed under Africa Naidu, he was staying at Kasiram Lodge, Madurai, along with Raju on the date of occurrence and that this prosecution was totally false, as far as it related to him. However, in spite of a plea of alibi, no evidence was let in to substantiate, such a plea. 18. We have heard Mr. C. Pandarasamy, appellant’s learned counsel in extenso. He took us though the recorded evidence and submitted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were witnesses interested in the deceased and hence their versions will have to be scrutinized with very great care and caution. He contended that both these’ witnesses had improved their versions from time to time and hence they cannot be held to be totally truthful witnesses. However, he had to concede that insofar as the occurrence is concerned, there is no visible improvement, in their versions. He then submitted, that there was no motive for this appellant to have engaged himself in this grave crime. He contended that Ex.P-13, the statement recorded from D-2, should not be relied upon, more so when it had not been acted upon by P.W.18. He commented upon the now-sending of the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, for chemical analysis. 19. On these submissions, we have heard Mr.R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He contended, that in spite of a serious lapse in the investigation commenced by P.W.18, the prosecution had been able to place reliable and trustworthy evidence before court, to safely pin down the appellant and Subburaj as the offenders, who had done to death both the deceased, in a merciless pattern. He contended that the acquittal of Africa Naidu due to lack of evidence to establish conspiracy cannot enure in favour of the appellant and another, who were the sole assailants of the deceased, for it is not the case of the prosecution, that Africa Naidu was anywhere near the venue of crime. 20. We have already expressed our shock even while commencing dictation of this judgment on the manner in which police officer had attempted to thwart the judicial process, of bringing to book, offenders in this grave crime. Such an attitude, apart from causing anxiety and dismay in our minds, puts us on greater guard to meticulously scrutinize the evidence with more care, than would be normally required. P.Ws.1 and 2, the daughters of both the deceased, are the most natural witnesses, to the occurrence. There is no dispute, that P.W.1 was present in the house of her parents, she having come down, for the Adi Festival. P.Ws.1 and 2, the daughters of both the deceased, are the most natural witnesses, to the occurrence. There is no dispute, that P.W.1 was present in the house of her parents, she having come down, for the Adi Festival. It was commented, that P.W.1 has given the name of her husband as Bose in the first information report, while in the witness box, she has claimed to have married P.W.3, Kalimuthu. Even from her evidence in court, it is clear, that her first husband Bose had already married, before his wedding with her and hence there is no wonder that P.W.1 was living with Bose though not on the basis of a strictly valid marriage. It is quite possible that similar was the position with P.W.3. On that basis alone, the credible evidence of P.W.1 cannot be distrusted, without any other valid ground. P.W.1 is the only witness, who has spoken about both the murders as an ocular witness. P.W.2 had deposed about the role played by the appellant and another in causing the death of D-1. If it was the intention of the prosecution, to secure more than one eye witness, to prove the second murder as well, it would have been easily possible to make this interested P.W.2 to depose about the second murder as well. The fact that P.W.2 had spoken only about that part of the occurrence she had witnessed, puts her on an elevated pedestal of credibility. She has deposed about her sister P.W.1 running to the place, where her father used to take his bed usually, with a view to get him to the venue of crime and appraise him of the murder of his wife. P.W.1, who went with that purpose, had unfortunately to witness the gruesome attack on her father as well, by the same assailants, who had caused the death of her mother. As we have stated earlier, the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with D-1 on that fateful night is quite natural. It is not as though the attack on D-1 was in a trice, for several injuries stood inflicted on her, which obviously would have taken some little time. Soon after the first cut, D-1 must have raised an alarm and that had woken up her daughters, who were able to witness the inflicting of several more cuts on her, by the appellant and another. Soon after the first cut, D-1 must have raised an alarm and that had woken up her daughters, who were able to witness the inflicting of several more cuts on her, by the appellant and another. That there was an electric lamp available shedding light cannot be easily lost sight of. It was of course pointed out, that during investigation neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 had stated about the availability of the electric street light. That makes hardly any difference, for the observation mahazar Ex. P-18 prepared on the same morning, clearly mentions about the availability of the electric street lamp, near the place, where D-1 was attacked. It is quite but natural that P.W.1 who had seen the attack by the appellant and another, on her mother, though it fit, as a helpless lady, to summon her father to the scene, so that law could be set in motion as quickly as possible, appellant, and another who had escaped after attacking D-1 had proceeded to the place where, to their knowledge, D-2 used to take his bed. The version of P.W.1 clearly pictures as to how D-2 had attempted to escape from the on slaught of the appellant and how he was chased and cut in her presence, leading to D-2 ultimately falling down with bleeding injuries, of course, still alive. According to her oral evidence, P.W.1 claims, that her father also informed her, about his assailants, but we have not taken note of the said oral declaration allegedly made by D-2 to P.W.1, since that does not form part of Ex.P-1. Though, in all probability it may be true, as a safe measure, we would exclude the said oral dying declaration made to P.W.1, out of consideration. .21. Another comment was made about the evidence of P.W.1 who has stated in her examination in chief, that she gave out her complaint, at the place, where her mother’s dead body was found and not at the police station, as claimed by her in the first information report. The argument does not have even the minimum impact in our minds, for the occurrence was in 1982 August and she was in the witness box in August, 1988, six years thereafter. The argument does not have even the minimum impact in our minds, for the occurrence was in 1982 August and she was in the witness box in August, 1988, six years thereafter. About Ex.P-1 having come into existence at the police station, we not only have the statement of P.W.1 in Ex.P-1 itself confirming that she and P.W.2 went over to the police station and preferred the complaint, but also the evidence of P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police, that Ex.P-1 was recorded by him at the police station. We have no manner of doubt about the genesis of the first information report, at the police station, in the manner projected by P.Ws.1, 2 and P.W.16. 22. It must also be stated at this juncture, that the appellant did have a motive to attack the deceased more as a henchman of Africa Naidu, the prior events, viz. the one beckoning P.W.2 for an illicit purpose by the Appellant and others some days prior to the occurrence and their later attempt to frighten both the deceased to bursting of crackers, resulting in Subburaj being taught a lesson by both the deceased, beating him, with broom-sticks and hand respectively, would suffice to picture the joint motive of Subburaj and the appellant, as henchmen of Africa Naidu, having, with an ulterior motive, attacked both the deceased, being aggrieved at the refusal of P.W.2 to share bed, with Africa Naidu on payment basis. Such a conduct of the appellant and another trying to act as pimps, had obviously aggrieved D-1, who was very vocal about the conduct of Africa Naidu. These facts could not have been brought out in a better pattern by the prosecution, and the available evidence, will certainly suffice to conclude, that the appellant and another, though not on their own, had a motive to attack both the deceased is the henchmen of Africa Naidu. The evidence of P.W.2 is fully in consonance with that of P.W.1 insofar as it relates to the murder of D-1. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.2 lends assurance to the version of P.W.1, for she has narrated about P.W.1 instinctively running towards the school to fetch her father to the scene, where his wife stood murdered. She also claims to have questioned D-2, who had confirmed that his assailants were Subburaj and the appellant. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.2 lends assurance to the version of P.W.1, for she has narrated about P.W.1 instinctively running towards the school to fetch her father to the scene, where his wife stood murdered. She also claims to have questioned D-2, who had confirmed that his assailants were Subburaj and the appellant. Even here, we do not want to attach much importance to the oral declaration allegedly made by D-2 to P.W.2, for she does not appear to have told about such an oral dying declaration having been made to her during investigation. We are able to comprehend, that this oral dying declaration spoken to by P.W.2 may be true, but we are eschewing its consideration, to be very safe not to take material against the appellant, which did not have an earlier foundation, during investigation. .23. Of course, P.W.3 husband of P.W.1 has provided res gestae evidence, confirming the occurrence having happened, in the manner spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2, though he himself was not an eye witness. He has also spoken about the oral dying declaration made by D-2. However, since his presence has not been mentioned in Ex.P-1, we would rather prefer to erase his evidence from consideration, not that we suspect it to be false, but since it does not have the assurance, as one would normally expect, before clearly finding the appellant guilty of murder, We must also state, that the versions of P.Ws. 1 and 2 get clear corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr.Manoharan and Dr.Ravi Narayanan examined as P.Ws.4 and 5. The indiscriminate attack on both the deceased on different parts of the body spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 has full corroboration from these two expert witnesses. 24. We must then state, that P.W.8, a total, independent person, is a trumpcard witness for the prosecution. He is neither interested in the deceased nor has any grievance against the appellant and another. He appears to be a helper in the real sense, and on arrival in the village at or about 3 a.m. he had become aware of the attack on both the deceased. We see no reason whatever to doubt the evidence of P.W.8, that D-2 had made an oral dying declaration to him, fixing the appellant and another as his assailants. We see no reason whatever to doubt the evidence of P.W.8, that D-2 had made an oral dying declaration to him, fixing the appellant and another as his assailants. He has come out with his version at the earliest point of time during investigation and that adds sure credibility, that we normally expect. He has also spoken about both P.Ws.1 and 2 informing him about the assailants, who had attacked D-1, and the information furnished to him by P. W. 1 only about those persons who had attacked her father, D-2. P.W.8 has been subjected to critical cross-examination and such questioning has highlighted, doubly, the truthfulness of his evidence. As a person seeking to help others in that area, he had done his duty by telephoning to the police promptly and attempting with all sincerity to get at an ambulance to take injured D-2 to the hospital. His version, which has a ring of truth, in one more edifice affirming the whole truth of the prosecution case. .25. We have already stated in very great detail about the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, the two witnesses who are normally residents of Madurai. Their oral evidence tested by cross-examination, and substantiated by documentary proof, excludes even a remote possibility, of the appellant claiming alibi. If a defence of alibi is set up by an accused, the onus is cast upon him to establish that plea. Of course, the onus cost on him to establish the plea of alibi is not so strong as the onus cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt against him but, still, he cannot escape the duty cast on him to probabilise that his case of alibi has a foundation strong enough to exclude the prosecution case and exonerate him from the crime alleged. Appellant has not even attempted to bring on record, the minimum required evidence, either by himself by examining defence witnesses or producing documentary evidence or by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, to probabilise his claim of alibi. Mere suggestions to prosecution witnesses, which stand denied, can have no significance whatever, there cannot be a second opinion that his plea of alibi has no basis and deserves outright rejection. 26. We are satisfied that the appellant has been correctly found guilty, of both the counts of murder, by the learned trial Judge. We do not have a different view to take. 26. We are satisfied that the appellant has been correctly found guilty, of both the counts of murder, by the learned trial Judge. We do not have a different view to take. Convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant, shall stand confirmed. This appeal is dismissed. 27. Before parting with this case, we will reiterate, and that we have observed, about the conduct of P.W.18, who had attempted to subvert, a true case. Even if he had been exonerated in a prior enquiry about which we have no material base, on our observations in this appeal, coupled with the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the judgment dated 29. 1987 made in S.C. No. 230 of 1986, the Director General of Police shall initiate suitable action against P.W.18. The projected picture, that a policeman is a friend of the community at large, should not be allowed to be further sullied, by officers like P.W.18 and his superior officer, who had chosen to fix his rubber stamp of approval, for forwarding of a referred report to the court, within two days of commission of a double murder, in spite of ocular version being available, inclusive of a dying declaration, made by one of the deceased, that the assailants were the appellant and another Subburaj. We still have a doubt, whether it was this Subburaj, who had met with his death in a rail accident, for we have no clear proof about that corpus delicti, connecting it with Subburaj. 28. We are further in grave anguish, to learn from appellant’s learned counsel, that the appellant was let out on parole, though this Court had refused bail for him and such release on parole has in effect licensed him to abscond and we were told, that even his counsel is helpless, since his relations are unable to trace him. We hope, that the influence, that the appellant had wielded in the earlier stages, had not now helped him to come out, on the guise of parole, to abscond, with a view, to make the long arm of justice ineffective. The highest echelon of police officers, shall act immediately, to trace the appellant and put him behind the bars in pursuance of this judgment, so that the saying that justice should not only be done, but must appear to have been done, as well, will have significance.