Judgment : M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellant Chinnaswami is he accused in S.C. No.41 of 1987, on the file of Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. He was tried and convicted for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts) for having committed the murder of his wife Savithiri (D-l) and one Gowri (D-2), His sister-in-law, on 12. 1986 at 9.00 a.m. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: (a) D-l Savithiri and D-2 Gowri are sisters, they are the daughters of P.W.1 Muniappan. D-l got married to the appellant. They had no issues. D-2 Gowri got married to one Nagarajan, who is the brother of the appellant. P.W.2 Sivam is a nephew of P.W.1. After marriage, D-1 and D-2 were living with their respective spouses at Panagamuthu Village. P.W.1 Muniappan, father of D-l and D-2, hails from Sikkathoranapettam Village. P.W.2 Sivam, was residing in the village called Chinnakummanur. All the villages are situate in and around the same area. (b) The appellant owned about 9 acres of land in his village. Of which 3 acres situate at the eastern side and 6 acres of land situate at the western side. There were (kottahai’ put up in both the lands. P.W.7 Perumal was also owning land, in which he put up a separate kottahai, just adjacent to the lands belonging to the appellant. (c) Five years prior to the date of occurrence, the said Nagarajan, brother of the appellant committed suicide, due to the immoral behaviour of his wife D-2-Gowri, Subsequent to his death, D-2 Gowri, with her two female children lived in the house of the appellant. (d) Due to the ill-advise of D-2, D-l also lead on immoral life. In course of time, D-2 had developed illicit intimacy with one Kanakaraj P.W.5 who was the President of the local village. Therefore, she was reprimanded by the appellant, and she was asked not to continue her illicit affairs with the said Nagarajan. Despite that, the intimacy continued, for which, a Panchayat was convened. In the panchayat, panchayatdars sufficiently warned D-l, and asked her to live peacefully with her husband, the appellant herein, without having any further affairs with P.W.5 Kanakaraj. (e) On 12. 1986, at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.2 went to the village of P.W.1, and requested to help him by providing some funds for doing agricultural operations. In the panchayat, panchayatdars sufficiently warned D-l, and asked her to live peacefully with her husband, the appellant herein, without having any further affairs with P.W.5 Kanakaraj. (e) On 12. 1986, at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.2 went to the village of P.W.1, and requested to help him by providing some funds for doing agricultural operations. P.W.1 said that he did not have any money, and so, he told him that they could got to the house of D-1 and get some amount from her. P.W.2 stayed for the night in the house of P.W.1. (f) Next day i.e., on 12. 1986, at about 5.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the Panagamuthu village, and went to the house of the appellant, where they found the house locked. Therefore, they went to western Side, in order to meet D-l It was at about 9.00 a.m. D-l Savithiri was proceeding towards west in the bund. The appellant was found going behind her at a distance of 5 to 6 feet, with M.O.1 koduval in his hand. When they were proceeding towards west, the appellant was found scolding D-l. Suddenly, the appellant caught hold of the tuff of D-1, and inflicted injuries on the neck of D-l, by giving repeated cuts. D-l fell down and died at the spot. (g) Thereafter, the appellant with M.O.1 koduval, went eastern side towards ‘kolla kottahai’ wherein D-2 was found available. On seeing the ghastly scene, both P.Ws.1 and 2 ran after the appellant, in order to catch hold of him. However, in the mean time, the appellant went inside the kottahai and attacked D-2 by causing injuries on her neck. On receipt of the injuries, D-2 also fell down, and died at the spot. (h) When P.Ws.1 and 2 cried and shouted at the ap-pellant, the appellant threatened both P.Ws.1 and 2, and threw the weapon - M.O.1, near the dead body of D-2 Gowri and fled away from the scene of occurrence. On seeing the shocking incident, in which his two daughters were done to death, P.W.1 came to the side of the dead body of D-l, and fell fainted. P.W.2 was sitting in the same place. (i) At about 11.00 a.m., the appellant went to Saparthi village, where the jurisdiction village Administrative Officer was living. On seeing the shocking incident, in which his two daughters were done to death, P.W.1 came to the side of the dead body of D-l, and fell fainted. P.W.2 was sitting in the same place. (i) At about 11.00 a.m., the appellant went to Saparthi village, where the jurisdiction village Administrative Officer was living. When he saw P.W.4 Jothimani, in the village an active member of a political party, and who was also already known to the appellant, he went and told him that in the morning he committed the murder of his wife and sister-in-law, due to his wife’s immoral behaviour, and came there in order to surrender before the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.4 who was waiting there, for getting a bus to go to Krishnagiri, advised him to go to Kaveripattinam Village Administrative Officer, since on that date, the Village Administrative Officer for the jurisdiction village viz., Saparthi, was on leave. (j) As per the advise of P.W.4, the appellant came to Kaveripattinam village at about 1.00 p.m. In the office of the V.A.O., P.W.3 Palanisamy and P.W.8 Thangaraj were present. The appellant gave statement to P.W.3 V.A.O., narrating the circumstances under which he committed the murder of his wife and his sister-in-law. The said statement was reduced into writing by P.W.3 and the signature of the appellant was obtained therein. The statement is Ex.P-1. The appellant was found wearing bloodstained shirt M.O.2 and bloodstained lungi-M.O.3. (k) After recording the statement, P.W.3 - V.A.O., in order to verify the statement, after handing over the custody of the appellant to the village menial in the office, went to Panagamuthu village, and found the dead bodies of both D-l and D-2, with bleeding injuries on their neck. P.W.1, the father of the deceased was also found lying down at the spot, and P.W.2 was also present there. Thereafter, P.W.3 went back to his office at Kaveripattinam, and prepared his report Ex.P-2. P.W.1, the father of the deceased was also found lying down at the spot, and P.W.2 was also present there. Thereafter, P.W.3 went back to his office at Kaveripattinam, and prepared his report Ex.P-2. (l) Along with these documents, P.W.3 V.A.O., took the appellant to Kaveripattinam Police station, and handed over these documents - Exs.P-1 and P-2 and the appellant to P.W.13 Head Constable at about 3.00 p.m. On the basis of Exs.P-1 and P-2, P.W.13, registered the case in Cr.No.422 of 1986, for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. Then he prepared Ex.P-17 F.I.R. P.W.13 arrested the appellant and recovered M.O.2 bloodstained shirt M.O.3 bloodstained lungi, M.O.4 banian and M.O.5 trouser from the appellant under Ex.P-3 mahazar. The appellant also put his signatures in the said documents, and the mahazar was attested by P.W.3. P.W.13, then sent telephonic message to Inspector of Police. Before that, he sent these documents Exs.P-1, P-2 along with Ex.P-17 to the jurisdiction Magistrate, as well as to his superior officials. (m) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, at about 3.25 p.m., on 12. 1986, received the telephonic message, came to the police station and took up investigation, after getting the F.I.R. copy. Immediately thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence along with the police party, and inspected the spot. He prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar and Drew Ex.P-18 rough sketch. (n) P.W. 14, also arranged through P.W. 12 photographer, to take photographs. At about 4.00 p.m. P.W.12 took photographs of the dead bodies of both the deceased. M.O.28 and M.O.30 series are the photos and M.0.27 and M.O.29 series are the negatives of D-1 Savithiri and D-2 Gowri respectively, (o) At about 5.00 p.m., P.W.14, recovered M.O.1 bloodstained koduval, near the dead body of D-2. He collected M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 sample earth under Ex.P-5 mahazar attested by P. W.3 and another. Between 5.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. P.W.14 held inquest over the dead body of D-2, and prepared Ex.P-19 inquest. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4, during the course of inquest. Then, he entrusted the dead body of D-2 to P.W.9 Police Constable, along with Ex.P-9 requisition for post-mortem, for being taken to Doctor. (p) At about 7.15 p.m. he recovered M.O.8 bloodstained earth and M.O.9 sample earth near the dead body of D-l Savithiri, under Ex.P-6 mahazar. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4, during the course of inquest. Then, he entrusted the dead body of D-2 to P.W.9 Police Constable, along with Ex.P-9 requisition for post-mortem, for being taken to Doctor. (p) At about 7.15 p.m. he recovered M.O.8 bloodstained earth and M.O.9 sample earth near the dead body of D-l Savithiri, under Ex.P-6 mahazar. Between 7.30 p.m., and 9.30 p.m. he held inquest over the dead body of D-l and prepared Ex.P-20 inquest report, P.W.14 sent the dead body of D-l through P.W.10 Police Constable, along with Ex.P-9 requisition, for post-mortem. (q) On 12. 1986 at about 10.00 p.m., P.W.6 Doctor Jeyammal, received Ex.P-7 requisition through P.W.9 and commenced post-mortem on the body of D-2 Gowri, at about 10.30 a.m. on 12. 1986. P.W.6 Doctor found the following injuries: “External”: An incised injury present over posterio lateral surface of upper part of right side neck measuring 7 1/2 x 4 1/2“. The injury directed forward towards left side of neck cutting all the structures of the neck on both dies, except a small portion of skin in the anterior surface of left side neck by means of which head was attached with that trunkmandibular base-exposed seen injured. Blood clot present in the wound. (2) An incised injury present over left shoulder region size 11/l” x 1“x 1/2”. On internal examination, clotted blood present over the face, right and left hand. Hyoid bone injured and no fracture in skull.“ Ex.P-6 is the post mortem certificate. P.W.6 Doctor was of the opinion that D-2 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by her in the neck. (r) After the post-mortem was over, P.W.9 Police Constable recovered M.O.10 bloodstained saree, M.O.11 jacket, M.O.12 brassiere, M.O.13 -pettycoat, M.O.14 saris ear stud one pair, and M.O.15 - gold nose screw, from the dead body of D-2 Gowri, and handed over the M.Os., at the police station, which were recovered under Ex.P-11. (s) On the night of 2. 1986 itself, P.W.10 Police Constable handed over the dead body of D-1 Savithiri to P.W.6 Doctor, who in turn commenced postmortem on the dead body of D-1, at about 11.45 a.m. On 12. (s) On the night of 2. 1986 itself, P.W.10 Police Constable handed over the dead body of D-1 Savithiri to P.W.6 Doctor, who in turn commenced postmortem on the dead body of D-1, at about 11.45 a.m. On 12. 1986, and found the following injuries: ”External: An incised gaping injury present over from the neck starting from left side of neck to right side neck measuring 4 1/2“x 2 1/2” x 2 1/ 2“Left side mandibular injured. Through the injury both sides all the muscles injured seen. Major blood vessels in carotid vessels seen injured. Nerves seen injured. On explanation of the injury, hyoid bone seen injured. Tracheal rings esophagus injured seen. Clotted blood present in the wound. On internal examination, hyoid bone seen injured and no fracture seen in skull.” Ex.P-10, is the post-mortem certificate in respect of D-l, P.W.6 Doctor gave opinion, that D-l would appeal to have died due to the injuries found on her neck. (t) P.W.10 Police Constable, after the post-mortem on the dead body of D-1, was over, recovered M.O.16 sares, M.O.17 jacket, M.O.18 pettycoat, M.O.19 and M.O.20 - nose screws, M.O.21 series-goldear studs one paid, M.O.22 - gold thali, M.0.23 series-thali kundus, M.0.24 - thali Kayaru, M.O.25 pieces of bangles and M.O.26 metties, and handed over these M.Os. at the police station, which were recovered under Ex.P-12 mahazar. (u) On 12. 1986, P.W.14, Inspector of Police, after interrogation of the accused, sent him for judicial custody. On 20.12.1986, he sent the requisition Ex.P-13 to the Judicial Magistrate, for sending the M.Os, to forensic examination, P.W.11, Court clerk sent the M.Os., along with the covering letter of the Magistrate - Ex.P-14, for chemical examination. Ex.P-15 is the Chemical Examiner’s report, and Ex.P-16 is the serologist’s report. (v) After completion of the investigation on 16. 1987, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet against the appellant under Sec.302, I.P.C. (two counts) 3. On committal, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts). The appellant pleaded not guilty and wanted to face the trial. 4. In proof of the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, filed Exs.P-1 to P-20 and marked M.Os. 1 to 30. After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The appellant pleaded not guilty and wanted to face the trial. 4. In proof of the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, filed Exs.P-1 to P-20 and marked M.Os. 1 to 30. After the evidence was over, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The appellant chose to deny his complicity in the crime, and he further added that he was taken by the police on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m., when he was in the village, and at the police station, the police obtained his signatures in some document, and that a false case had been foisted against him. He would further admit that his brother Nagarajan committed suicide only due to the immoral behaviour of D-2 Gowri, wife of his brother Nagarajan, and that there was an illicit intimacy between D-1 Savithiri, his wife and P.W.5 Kanagaraj. However, he would deny having given any statement to P.W.3 and having recovered any clothes, much less M.Os.2 and 3 from him by the police, as alleged by the prosecution. 5. On termination of trial, the trial court, on consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond doubt, and dealt with as referred to earlier. 6. Being aggrieved over this verdict, the present action has been resorted to by the appellant, by filing this appeal before this Court. 7. Mr.M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, representing Mr.Raviraja Pandian, appearing for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence, and strenuously contended that there are various infirmities in the case of prosecution, that the trial court itself disbelieved the evidence of so called eye witness -P.Ws.1 and 2, and that the only evidence available against the appellant is the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before P.W.3 -V.A.O., which also is full of infirmities, and that therefore, the prosecution case bristles with inherent improbabilities and incurable infirmities, and that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, since there is a serious doubt arises in the circumstances stated supra. 8.Per contra, Mr.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Government Advocate, representing the Public out various materials found available in the case, and contended that there are enough materials to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court. 9. 8.Per contra, Mr.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Government Advocate, representing the Public out various materials found available in the case, and contended that there are enough materials to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court. 9. At the outset, as rightly pointed out by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, that the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye witnesses, is not reliable and has to be rejected in toto. 10. According to the prosecution, P.W.1, the father of both the deceased was having misunderstanding with the appellant, since he was not invited for the marriage of the sister of the appellant, sometime prior to the occurrence. P.W.1 himself would admit that since he was not invited to the marriage, he died not attend to the marriage. Moreover, P.W.2, who is the nephew of P.W.1 would say that he approached P.W.1 to give some loan for incurring expenditure towards his agricultural operation, for which P.W.1 told him that he did not have any money, and that both would go to the house of the appellant, for getting amount from the deceased. This part of the evidence, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be accepted, in view of the admission by P.W.1, that there was misunderstanding between P.W.1, that there was misunderstanding between P.W. 1 and the appellant. Therefore, one cannot accept that P.W.1 would approach the appellant, and his daughters viz., the wife and sister-in-law of the appellant, who were residing along with the appellant, for the purpose of getting the amount, in order to help P. W.2. 11. Even assuming that P.W.2 approached P.W.1 for hand loan, P.W. 1, when he had no money, would have asked P.W.2 himself to go to the house of the appellant and get amount from the deceased or else, he would have made arrangements for getting money from any of his friends residing in the same village. This had not been done, So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, to the effect that they went to the house of appellant, for the purpose of getting some financial assistance either from the appellant or from the deceased would not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court. .12. Furthermore the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that when the appellant attached D-l Savithiri, both P.Ws.1 and 2 were standing 200 feet away from D-1. .12. Furthermore the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that when the appellant attached D-l Savithiri, both P.Ws.1 and 2 were standing 200 feet away from D-1. It is also the case of the prosecution, through P.Ws.1 and 2, that after D-l was being cut by the appellant, he ran towards the eastern side to attack D-2. It is not understandable, as to why P.W.1 who was aged about 47 years and P.W.2 an young man of 21 years, have not made any attempt for either catching the deceased or preventing the appellant from attaching the deceased. 13. One another dismel feature in this case is that the appellant, after having made cuts on the neck of D-2, threw M.O.1 - Koduval, by the side of D-2 Gowri, and went away. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, D-2 Gowri was attached inside the Kottahai. There is only one entrance for the said Kottahai, as found in the rough sketch - Ex.P-18. Therefore, the appellant must have outside the kottahai, after dropping the Koduval - M.O.1, near the dead body and run away only without any weapon. If that be so, there was no reason, as to why P.Ws.1 and 2 kept silent, without chasing the appellant and catching him in order to produce him before the police. 14. Another suspicious feature is that P.W.1, near the dead body of D-l fell fainted on the ground. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 would say that P.W.1 gained consciousness only at 4.00 p.m., when the police came to the spot. It is admitted by P.W.2, on the course of his cross-examination, that he did not take any steps to send information to the police station, or to give any first aid to P.W.1, who was lying down unconsciously in the scene of occurrence, between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. 15. It is also admitted in the course of cross-examination by P.W.1, that all the villagers gathered there, after the occurrence was over. So, we are not able to see any reason as to why the villagers did not take any steps to give first aid treat to P.W.1, or to give intimation to the police. .16. It is also admitted in the course of cross-examination by P.W.1, that all the villagers gathered there, after the occurrence was over. So, we are not able to see any reason as to why the villagers did not take any steps to give first aid treat to P.W.1, or to give intimation to the police. .16. Yet another feature, which makes the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 suspicious is the statement given by the appellant before P.W.3 -V.A.O. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they did not attempt to catch the accused, because the accused threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 with M.O.1 Koduval, that if they would come near him, they would also be subjected to the same fate. But, a perusal of Ex.P-1, the statement given by the appellant to P.W.3, would show that though there are so many details with reference to the narration of events, there is no mention about the presence of P.Ws.1 and2. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, relating to their having seen the occurrence is true, naturally we can find those reference in Ex.P-1. For all these reasons, we feel, that the testimony of the so-called ocular witnesses-P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon, and on that basis, no conviction can be based on the appellant. 17. The next aspect of the evidence, as referred to by the prosecution through P.Ws.3 and 4, is the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to P.W.4 at the first instance at about 11.00 a.m., and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer at 1.00 p.m. (i) Mr.M. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel made a serious attack on the aspect of this evidence, by pointing out various features in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Learned Senior counsel contended that P.W.4, being an active member of a political party, having admitted that he would use to go to police station for settling disputes, ought to have taken the appellant, as soon as he got the information about the death of two persons, in order to hand over him to the police, or atleast, he must have accompanied the appellant to P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer. (ii) Learned Senior Counsel also contended that it is the case of the defence, as projected through the suggestion made to the concerned witnesses, that the extrajudicial confession was not made by the appellant to P.W.3, and the appellant did not meet P.W.4, at the relevant time, since after the receipt of information about the death of both the deceased, the police officers had gone to the spot, and then arrested the accused, and only thereafter, P.W.3 had been procured in order to prepare the documents - Exs.P-1 and P-2, to suit the convenience of the prosecution case, and as such, any statement given by the accused before the V.A.O., after the investigation started, would become inadmissible. (iii) Learned Senior counsel would also point out, about the evidence of P.W.3, that his testimony is quite artificial, in the sense, as soon as he obtained the statement - Ex.P-1 from the appellant, instead of preparing Ex.P-2 report and taking the accused to the police station, he had gone to the scene, which is 12 kms. away from his office, in order to verify whether the contents of Ex.P-1 were true. (iv) Learned Senior Counsel would also contend that P. W.3 would admit that he was not the jurisdiction V.A.O., and in the place in jurisdiction V.A.O., who was residing at Saparthi Village, he was asked by the Revenue Inspector to take charge, only at 12 noon on 12. 1996. It is relevant to note that the occurrence had taken place only at 9.00 a.m. On 12. 1986, and only at 12.00 noon, R.W.3, was asked by the Revenue Inspector to take charge of the scene village, especially when P.W.4 would say that the V.A.O., of Saparthi Village, was on leave only on 12. 1986. The contention of learned senior counsel is that the non-examination of the said Revenue Inspector, relating to the aspect of evidence given by P. Ws.3 and 4 would materially affect the case of prosecution, in the context of the suggestion put by the defence, stating that P.W.3 must have been procured by the police, only after having gone to the spot and having seen that there was no eye witness, the police prepared the documents and obtained the signatures thereon. .(v) Of course it is true that the non-examination of the Revenue Inspector, would make it difficult to know as to when the jurisdiction V.A.O., applied for leave and exactly on what date P. W.3 took charge of the jurisdiction village. However, it should not be forgotten, that P.W.3 was informed by the Revenue Inspector, to take charge of the village, earlier to the statement given by the appellant to P.W.3. According to P.W.3, he went to the spot to verify the contents of Ex.P-1, and especially he would admit that he crossed the police station, before going to the scene. .(vi) Of course, P.W.3 could have informed the police about the information given by the appellant at about 1.00 p.m., when he was on the way to the scene village, through the police station. Atleast P.W.3 could have come to the police station and informed this incident, before he returned to his office at Kaveripattinam. But, it is to be noted that P.W.3 went to the spot, only in order to satisfy himself, as to the genuineness of the contents of the statement Ex.P-1, and only after verification he came back to the office for the purpose of preparing Ex.P-2, and taking the accused to the police station. So, in such a situation, it cannot be concluded that mere failure on the part of P.W.3, to give information to the police station time earlier, would affect the case of the prosecution. (vii) P.W.4, of course, as pointed out, could have accompanied the appellant, either to the police station or to the office of the Village Administrative Officer. But it should be relevant to note that P.W.4 has given explanation with reference to that, by stating that, It is also pointed out that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4, with reference to the aspect whether he came to Panagamuthu junction road, in order to look after some party work or to go to Krishnagiri by getting a bus. (viii) In the chief examination P.W.4 would say that he was standing near the bus stop, in order to do some party work. But in the cross-examination, he admitted that he was standing near the bus stand, in order to get a bus to proceed to Krishnagiri. (viii) In the chief examination P.W.4 would say that he was standing near the bus stop, in order to do some party work. But in the cross-examination, he admitted that he was standing near the bus stand, in order to get a bus to proceed to Krishnagiri. Though there is a slight contradiction with reference to the purpose for which he was standing at the relevant place, the fact remains that he was standing at the bus - stand at the relevant time. Moreover, such contradiction, in our view, would not in any way affect the case of the prosecution, because only on the advise of P.W.4, who met him at 11.00 a.m., the appellant went to Kaveripattinam and gave Ex.P-1 - Statement to P.W.3 V.A.O. Therefore, we are not able to find any infirmity with reference to the extrajudicial confession, with reference to the extrajudicial confession, as projected by P.Ws.3 and 4. (ix) It is true that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and no conviction could be based on the same basis of the extra-judicial confusion. But, however, it is settled law that if extra-judicial confusion is a reliable one which is also corroborated by other materials, then on the basis of such extra-judicial confusion, conviction could be based. With reference to which, learned Government Advocate, cited an authority reported in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2274, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: "Law does not require that the evidence of an extrajudicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. In the instant case, the extrajudicial confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. There was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of Balbir Singh particularly when the extra judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty (sic.) (Cartridge?) from the place of occurrence." (x) In the light of the above observation made by the Apex Court, if we go through the evidence of P. W.3, we could come to the conclusion, that the evidence of P.W.3 could be relied upon, without any hesitation, as there is no animus between the appellant and P.W.3. 18. One more signal circumstance is the recovery of bloodstained clothes from the appellant, which consist of the same blood group of both the deceased. 18. One more signal circumstance is the recovery of bloodstained clothes from the appellant, which consist of the same blood group of both the deceased. M.O.1 Koduval was recovered from the spot. M.Os.2 and 3, the bloodstained shirt and bloodstained lungi were recovered from the appellant, at the police station. M.0.6 bloodstained earth taken near the dead body of D-2 Gowri and M.0.8 - bloodstained earth taken near the dead body of D-1, Savithiri, M.Os.16 to 18 bloodstained clothes of D-1, all contained the same blood group ‘AB’ human blood. This is clear from the Serologist’s report Ex.P-16. Therefore, apart from the extra-judicial confession, given by the appellant to P. W.3, there is also evidence to show that the bloodstained clothes of the appellant recovered from him at the time of his production before the police, to show that the appellant and the appellant alone had committed the murder of D-1 and D-2. 19. Furthermore, to corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8, Village Menial, who was present at the time - of recording of the extrajudicial confession given by the appellant, would also speak to the said fact, he would also speak about the recovery of the bloodstained clothes from the accused, at the police station by the police officer, which has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13, Head Constable. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the appellant was correctly found guilty by the trial court, by giving proper reasonings. 21. At this stage, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Devku Bhikhav. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1995S.C. 2171 in order to bring the case under X Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C., since the occurrence was sudden one. 22. Of course, P.W.1 would say that before the first attack made on D-1, there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and D-1. It is also found in Ex.P-1, that when the appellant asked the deceased to stop her illicit connection with P. W.5 Kanakaraj, she said, So, on this basis, learned senior counsel requested this Court to consider the case for bringing down the offence under Sec.304, Part 1, I.P.C., by invoking Exception I to Sec.300, I.P.C. 23. No doubt it is true, that the first murder was taken place, on hearing the provocative words of D-1. No doubt it is true, that the first murder was taken place, on hearing the provocative words of D-1. But it is important to note, in this context, that when the appellant was accompanying D-1, at the relevant time he was carrying M.O.1 Koduval with him. Further more, he was not satisfied with the murder of D-1. He had an impression that D1 had developed illicit intimacy with P.W.5 Kanakaraj, only because of the ill-advise of D-2, Gowri, and that his brother Nagarajan also died five years back by committing suicide, only because of her immoral behaviour, and so, the appellant wanted to finish D-2 Gowri also. After committing the murder of D-1, the appellant crossed 200 feet from the first scene of occurrence, by carrying M.O.1 - Koduval, went to ‘Kottahai’, and committed the murder of D-2, by giving repeated cuts on her neck. This would make it clear that the accused intended to cause the death of D-1 and D-2, and thereby he had murdered both the deceased. Therefore, in our view, the acts of the appellant clearly would attract Sec.302, I.P.C. and does not fall under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. 24. In view of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court are perfectly justified, and so, we are not inclined to take a different view from that of the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 25. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the court below are confirmed, and the criminal appeal is dismissed.