Judgment :- A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J. The appellant herein was charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (2 counts) for causing the death of Soorasankaravel (hereinafter referred to as first deceased) and his wife Pachaiammal (hereinafter referred to as second deceased) at about 11.30 a.m. on 14.6.1996 in the village Kattunayakanpatti. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, who tried the accused, found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- under each count. The Court also held that the accused should undergo the sentences consecutively. The aggrieved accused has preferred the above appeal. 2. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined Pws.1 to 13; marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and produced Mos.1 to 10. 3. As could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution can be narrated as under. (a) The deceased, who are husband and wife, belong to Kattunayakanpatti. PW-1 Kakilakshmi is their daughter while PW-4 Balakrishnan is their son, both minors at the time of occurrence. The second deceased's brother's wife is PW-3 Saradha, who resides in the village called Solapuram. (b) There had been disputes between the accused and first deceased with regard to a plot of land and in that regard, first deceased also gave a police complaint. (c) On the fateful day, while the second deceased was returning from Adhanur, where she was doing business of selling sweets, noticed the son of the accused cutting a branch in the tree standing in the land of the deceased. Seeing this, the second deceased told that boy not to cut and further warned him that otherwise he will be beaten. It appears that the boy went and told his mother as if the second deceased had beaten him. The wife of the accused, probably believing the statement of his son, came to the house of the deceased and questioned the second deceased as to why she had beaten her son. The second deceased told the wife of the accused that she did not beat her son and that she is prepared to go to any temple and swear before the God. Thereafter, the wife of the accused left the place stating that the second deceased had beaten her son. (d) The second deceased then followed the wife of the accused saying that the matter could be informed to Thanga Asari. Thereafter, the wife of the accused left the place stating that the second deceased had beaten her son. (d) The second deceased then followed the wife of the accused saying that the matter could be informed to Thanga Asari. PW-1 and the first deceased followed the second deceased. Again there was wordy altercation between the second deceased and the wife of the accused. At that time, the accused came there and he was having an aruval in his hands. The accused pushed the first deceased down and cut him on his neck. The first deceased then shouting "btl;lhnj", prevented the accused cutting and thus the cut fell on the left hand of the first deceased and three fingers were completely severed off. Seeing this, the second deceased prevented the accused by saying "vd; g[U#id btl;otpl;lhna". Thereafter, the accused held the tuft of the second deceased and pushed her down and cut her on the back and neck. Both the deceased, who received the cut injuries, died on the spot. Thereafter the accused threatened PW-1 and she immediately ran to inform her brother PW-4 who was witnessing temple festival at that time. After PW-1 informed PW-4, both of them came to the scene of occurrence and after seeing both the deceased, proceeded to inform their aunt PW-3 at Solapuram. Then all of them came back to the scene of occurrence and PW-1 and PW-3 proceeded to Eppothum Vendran Police Station. (e) PW-11 was the Head Constable at the Eppothum Vendran Police Station at the relevant time. At about 2.00 p.m., Pws.1 and 3 appeared before him and gave a statement Ex.P-1 and the same was reduced to writing, in which PW-1 affixed her thumb impression. PW-3 also signed in the said statement. On the basis of the said complaint, crime No.52 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered and printed F.I.R. Ex.P-11 was prepared. Both Exs.P-1 and P-11 were sent to the Judicial Magistrate through PW-9 constable. (f) PW-13 Kandasamy is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Eppothum Vendran Police station. Investigation in the case was done by Mr.Iyathurai Anthony, Inspector of Police and since he retired from service and at the relevant time he was bed ridden, PW-13, who is well familiar with the hand writing of the said Inspector of Police, deposed before the Court. (f) PW-13 Kandasamy is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Eppothum Vendran Police station. Investigation in the case was done by Mr.Iyathurai Anthony, Inspector of Police and since he retired from service and at the relevant time he was bed ridden, PW-13, who is well familiar with the hand writing of the said Inspector of Police, deposed before the Court. According to PW-13, Inspector of Police Iyathurai Anthony took over the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 14.6.1996 at about 3.35 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-17 rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. The blood stained earth, ordinary earth, etc., viz., MOS.2 to 5 were seized from the scene of occurrence under mahazar Ex.P-3. An inquest over the body of first deceased was held in the presence of Panchayatdars between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on that day and Ex.P-18 inquest report was prepared. Similarly, inquest over the body of the second deceased was held in the presence of Panchayatdars between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on the same day and Ex.P-19 inquest report was prepared. During inquest, Inspector of Police examined Pws.1 to 4, 6 and others and recorded their statements. Thereafter, necessary requisition was sent to the Doctor at the Government Hospital to conduct post mortem on the body of both the deceased. (g) PW-7 was the Doctor at the relevant time at Ettayapuram Police Station, who conducted post mortem on the body of the first deceased in the fore noon of 15.6.1996. Ex.P-6 is the post mortem certificate with regard to the first deceased. In the said certificate, the Doctor had noted the following, "A moderately nourished, built body of a male aged about 45 years, lies on back, eyes partially opened. Mud present over the head, face, chest left side. Blood stains over the face, left ear, nostrils, left thigh, right thigh. 1) Right Thumb Phalanx (proximal) cut completely – the cut edges of the Phalanx – matches. 2) Right index finger completely severed at proximal phalanx – cut edges matches. 3) Right middle finger proximal phalanx – completely severed – cut edges – matches. Specimen of bone and soft tissues – from both fragments sent for Forensic Experts opinion. INJURIES: 1. 12 x 7 cms a curved incised wound on the left shoulder exposing the muscles underneath. 2. An incised wound 6 x 7 cms just above the previous. 3. 3) Right middle finger proximal phalanx – completely severed – cut edges – matches. Specimen of bone and soft tissues – from both fragments sent for Forensic Experts opinion. INJURIES: 1. 12 x 7 cms a curved incised wound on the left shoulder exposing the muscles underneath. 2. An incised wound 6 x 7 cms just above the previous. 3. An incised wound 8 x 3 cms just below the No.1 injury on the back side of chest. 4. 20 x 2 cms incised just behind the left ear around the back side of neck C2, C3 level severing the vertebral column, spinal cord (nc) nerves, blood vessels ending just behind right ear lobe. 5. 22 x 3 cms an incised wound merging with the previous sparing tag of skin interiorly. 6. 22 x 6 cms an incised wound back side of neck just merging with the previous. Hyoid intact; stomach empty; Heart chambers empty. All internal organs pale. Brain pale." The Doctor had opined that the deceased would have died about 22 to 26 hours prior to post mortem due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained, the fatal injury being the one caused around the neck. (h) On the same day, the Doctor conducted autopsy over the body of the second deceased and issued Ex.P-7 post mortem certificate. In the said certificate the Doctor has noted the following. "A moderately nourished built body of a female aged 40 years, lies on back. Mud over the face, head and abdomen. Blood stains over the face, chest, frothy discharge from mouth, nostrils. Eyes partially opened, tongue within the mouth. INJURIES: 1. 5 x 2 cms an oblique – incised wound left forearm inner aspect – muscles severed – with fracture ulnar bone. 2. 4 x 2 cms – an incised wound just below the former. 3. 6 x 5 cms incised wound on the left wrist – outer aspect. 4. Fracture of radius distain end left. 5. 14 x 3 cms a transverse cut injury on the right inter scapular region severing the vertebral column and spinal cord underneath. 6. Fracture right scapular medial end. 7. 23 x 5 cms an incised wound on the right supra scapular region, back side of the neck upto the medial end of left collar bone. 8. 5. 14 x 3 cms a transverse cut injury on the right inter scapular region severing the vertebral column and spinal cord underneath. 6. Fracture right scapular medial end. 7. 23 x 5 cms an incised wound on the right supra scapular region, back side of the neck upto the medial end of left collar bone. 8. 23 x 5 cms an incised wound merging with the previous – commencing from just above the medial end of right collar bone. 9. On exploration of the injury No.8 – C7 level severed of spinal cord, vertebral column, muscles, great vessels, nerves. Internal appearance: All internal viscera organs pale. Stomach – empty; Heart chambers empty; Hyoid – Hyoid cartilage intact; Uterus empty; Brain pale." The Doctor in the post mortem certificate Ex.P-7 had opined that the death would have occurred 23 to 27 hours prior to post mortem due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained. (i) The accused surrendered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the Inspector of Police, coming to know that, took steps to get police custody of the accused. On 1.7.1996, the police custody of the accused was secured and the accused was enquired in the presence of PW-8 and another. The accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement and the admissible portion in the said statement is Ex.P-8. Pursuant to the said statement, the accused took the police party and witnesses to the place north of Kattunayakanpatti and from a bush in the burial ground, took out and handed over an aruval and the same was seized under Ex.P-9 mahazar. The arrest as well as recovery was done in the presence of witnesses. (j) On 3.7.1996, the Inspector of Police examined PW-7 Doctor and other witnesses Pws.9 to 11 and recorded their statements. Ex.P-15 is the chemical analysis report while Ex.P-16 is the serologist's report. The Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation, filed his final report before the Court. 4. When questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C., the accused pleaded ignorance and further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. That both the deceased died of homicidal violence is fairly clear from the evidence of PW-7 Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased. 4. When questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C., the accused pleaded ignorance and further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. That both the deceased died of homicidal violence is fairly clear from the evidence of PW-7 Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased. So far as the first deceased is concerned, the Doctor noted six injuries and so far second accused is concerned, the Doctor noted as many as nine injuries. According to the Doctor, both the deceased died due to the cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained. 6. The case of the prosecution briefly is that there had been dispute between the accused and the first deceased with regard to a plot of land and in fact, in this regard the first deceased also gave a complaint to the Police. On the fateful day, the second deceased was coming back from Athanur when she noticed the son of the accused cutting a branch of the tree, standing in their land. The second deceased warned that boy not to do so and it appears, the boy complained to his mother and she came and questioned the second deceased. The wife of the accused after so questioning the second deceased, left the place and the second deceased followed her for the purpose of telling one Thanga Asari, so that the matter could be talked over. The second deceased was followed by the first deceased and PW-1 and the whole occurrence took place in front of the house of Thanga Asari. The accused, first attacked the first deceased and inflicted injuries and then attacked second deceased and both of them died on the spot. This gruesome act was witnessed by PW-1, daughter of both the deceased, who informed his brother PW-4, who was in the temple witnessing a festival and that thereafter both of them went and informed PW-3, their aunt in the nearby village. Pws.1 and 3 thereafter went and gave complaint to PW-11 Head Constable. 7. Thus, the case of the prosecution wholly rests on the sole eye witness viz., PW-1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it would not be safe to act on the testimony of PW-1 for various reasons. Pws.1 and 3 thereafter went and gave complaint to PW-11 Head Constable. 7. Thus, the case of the prosecution wholly rests on the sole eye witness viz., PW-1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it would not be safe to act on the testimony of PW-1 for various reasons. First, he contended that PW-1 is none else than the daughter of the deceased and that being so, she being a related witness, it would not be safe to act on her testimony. Secondly it is submitted that at the relevant time, this witness was aged only 13 years old and further she was examined in court virtually after a period of four years and because of the long gap, she would not have remembered the occurrence properly to depose before the Court correctly. Yet another submission has been made to the effect that PW-1 being a child witness, the possibility of other interested witnesses viz., PW-3 and PW-4 tutoring PW-1 was always there. Then it is contended that Eppothum Vendran Police Station lies between Kattunayakanpatti and Solapuram and when Pws.1 and 4 went to Solapuram all the way from Kattunayakanpatti, they could have informed the Police. Even if it is not while going to Solapuram, at least on their way back from Solapuram they could have complained to the Police. The story that Pws.1, 3 and 4 went to Kattunayakanpatti and after seeing the deceased, Pws.1 and 3 went to Police station to give complaint, cannot be believed and such a story has been put forward only to gain time for the purpose of discussion and deliberation before giving complaint. Finally a submission is made that the thumb impression found in Ex.P-1 is not that of PW-1 and that in fact the deceased have lot of enemies in the scene village as well as in the adjoining village and in all likelihood only they should have finished off both the deceased. 8. True, PW-1 is none else than the daughter of the deceased. But on that ground the Court cannot refuse to consider her evidence or eschew that evidence totally from consideration. All that is required is, the Court must scrutinise the evidence of such witness with more care and caution. 9. It is also true that at the relevant time PW-1 was just 13 years old. But on that ground the Court cannot refuse to consider her evidence or eschew that evidence totally from consideration. All that is required is, the Court must scrutinise the evidence of such witness with more care and caution. 9. It is also true that at the relevant time PW-1 was just 13 years old. But that does not mean that she is not capable of understanding things and depose before Court properly. When a young girl like PW-1 witnesses such a gruesome murder of the deceased, who are none else than her father and mother and moreso when attacked by a known person, the possibility of PW-1 forgetting as to what had happened on the fateful day would be very remote. Such an event will never go out of mind. 10. The occurrence was at about 11.30 a.m. on that unfortunate day. Naturally, PW-1, who was just 13 years old, would not have known as to what to do. That is why she immediately rushed to see her brother PW-4 aged 16 years, who was near the temple witnessing the festival. Both these minors naturally rushed to see their aunt PW-3 in the nearby village and all of them viz., Pws.1, 3 and 4 rushed back to see the deceased and thereafter Pws.1 and 3 went to give complaint to Eppothum Vendran Police Station, which is about 2 kms away. The complaint was given at about 2.00 p.m. and it cannot be said that there was long delay in giving complaint and was given after much deliberation and discussion. This Court has also to remember that it is a case of single accused and the occurrence took place in the broad day light. No one will leave the real assailant and implicate someone else. 11. Various suggestions were made to PW-1 in the cross examination such as the deceased got many enemies, both in the same village and in the adjoining village and further the thumb impression found in Ex.P-1 is not that of her. Pw-1 has emphatically denied all those suggestions. We went through the testimony of PW-1, in particular, the cross examination and our assessment is that this witness has spoken only truth and nothing else. To sum up, we are fully satisfied that PW-1 is a reliable witness and her testimony can be safely acted upon. 12. Pw-1 has emphatically denied all those suggestions. We went through the testimony of PW-1, in particular, the cross examination and our assessment is that this witness has spoken only truth and nothing else. To sum up, we are fully satisfied that PW-1 is a reliable witness and her testimony can be safely acted upon. 12. The evidence of Pws.3 and 4 can be taken up together for consideration. PW-4, as already stated is the brother of PW-1 and son of the deceased. At the relevant time PW-4 was also a minor, aged about 16 years. Pws.1 and 4 being minors, probably were not at that time in a position to decide as to what to do and because of which they decided first to go and see PW-3, their aunt in the nearby village. It would be rather difficult to expect Pws.1 and 4, the minors to go to Police Station and give a complaint. Their conduct in approaching PW-3 is quite natural. There is no abnormality in the conduct of Pw-3 also in seeing the deceased first and then lodging complaint after that. 13. Pws.1 and 3 appeared before the Police Station and gave complaint at about 2.00 p.m. The complaint was given by PW-1 and in the said complaint PW-3 also affixed her signature. Certainly recording of the complaint and preparing printed F.I.R. and observing other formalities would have taken an hour or so. Thereafter, the complaint was sent through PW-9 Police Constable to the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, which is about 20 kms away and the same reached the Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. It cannot be said that there was delay in express F.I.R. reaching the Court. 14. There is yet another aspect, which we have to point out. PW-4 also resides along with the deceased. If really the Police desired to create some evidence, they could have very well projected a case as if the occurrence was witnessed by PW-4 also. Similarly, PW-3 is the aunt of Pws.1 and 4, who resides in Solapuram, a nearby village. PW-3 could have been made to say that she came to see the festival and thus happened to be in the house of the deceased and witnessed the occurrence. Similarly, PW-3 is the aunt of Pws.1 and 4, who resides in Solapuram, a nearby village. PW-3 could have been made to say that she came to see the festival and thus happened to be in the house of the deceased and witnessed the occurrence. What we are trying to point out is that the prosecution has come forward with a true case and that further the complaint by PW-1 was not the one given after deliberation and discussion. 15. The above discussion would persuade us to come to a conclusion that the testimonies Pws.1, 3 and 4 are worthy of acceptance and we do not find any reason whatsoever to reject them. Once we come to such a conclusion, this Court has to necessarily hold that it was the accused, who committed the gruesome murder of both the deceased. 16. The trial Court is perfectly correct in awarding life sentence and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count. But the trial court is wrong in passing an order that the sentences shall run consecutively. The Supreme Court way back in the year 1961 in the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1961 SC 600 ), ruled that unless the life imprisonment is commuted or remitted by appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of law applicable in the case, a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound in law to serve the life term in prison and the same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Zahid hussein v. State of West Bengal (2001 AIR SCW 1139) and Subhash Chander v. Krishan Lal (2001 AIR SCW 1492). In fact, the Supreme Court in the latter case ruled that the accused shall not be entitled for any commutation or premature release under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for the purpose of grant of commutation and remissions. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant/accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin by his Judgment dated 30.10.2000 in S.C.No.40 of 1997 under Section 302 I.P.C. (2 counts) and the sentences of life imprisonment thereof are hereby confirmed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge that the sentences of life imprisonment shall run consecutively shall stand modified as to run concurrently.