Judgment :- M.Thanikachalam, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence, slapped by the Principal Sessions Judge, erstwhile South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.123/94 dated 21.4.1995. 2. The respondent police laid a final report against the accused appellants, seeking conviction under Section 302 I.P.C., alleging that on 5.5.1993 at about 1.00 p.m., both the accused with an intention to commit murder, armed with reapers, joined together and voluntarily caused hurt to one Malarkodi, in the verandah of Pachaiamman Temple, Vagaiyur, resulting her death, instantaneously. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, satisfying herself that prima facie case has been made out, to frame charges, did so, but the accused appellants pleaded not guilty, thereby seeking trial. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined, seeking support from 21 exhibits and 21 material objects. 5. On behalf of the accused, to prove P.W.2 could not be the eye witnesses for the incident, as well as to prove that the second accused could not have been present at the scene of crime, during the alleged incident, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. 6. The learned trial Judge, perusing the materials placed before her, and considering the effect of oral as well as the documentary evidence, was of the view that a definite case was made out, for the murder of Malarkodi, against both the accused and in that view, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused, to undergo life imprisonment, which is impugned in this appeal. 7. The facts necessary to dispose of the case: (a) Thiru Elangovan (P.W.3) and one Malarkodi (deceased) are the husband and wife and their daughters are Palaniammal (P.W.2) and Indrani (P.W.5). Accused 1 & 2 are closely related. All are the residents of Ramanatham. (b) The first accused, developed illicit intimacy with Malarkodi, when her husband went abroad. At the instance of the first accused, Malarkodi was having a Tea Stall near the road, not only in the property of the first accused, but also encroaching upon the poramboke land, under the banner "Malarkodi Tea Stall". In the money transaction between the first accused and Malarkodi, there was some dispute, causing strained relationship. (c) The son of the second accused had love affairs with P.W.5, Indrani, which was not recognised or approved by the accused. Malarkodi was insisting, that the son of the second accused should marry her daughter, Indrani. In the money transaction between the first accused and Malarkodi, there was some dispute, causing strained relationship. (c) The son of the second accused had love affairs with P.W.5, Indrani, which was not recognised or approved by the accused. Malarkodi was insisting, that the son of the second accused should marry her daughter, Indrani. To avoid this, the second accused sent his son abroad, which caused frustration to Malarkodi. (d) The request of the first accused, to vacate Malarkodi from tea stall ended in vain and therefore, he reported the matter to Panchayat President viz., Palanimuthu, P.W.6. The place, where Malarkodi was having tea stall, was measured and found that the tea stall was in the highway, covering an extent of 2 1/2 cents, including 1/4 cent of the land of the first accused, as spoken by P.W.7. Malarkodi asserting that she will not vacate the premises, demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- and jewels also, before the Panchayatdar, which was not accepted by the first accused. (e) Due to the above conduct of Malarkodi, both the accused had decided to commit the murder of Malarkodi, in order to eradicate all problems. Malarkodi, because of the threat committed by the first accused, apprehending danger to her life, and to expose the same, in the event of happening, tattooed in her left hand that @fnzrd; vd;fpw Kj;Jrhkp vd;gtuhy; vdf;F capUf;F Mgj;J. ,g;gof;F kyh;f;bfho@/ (f) On 5.5.1993, at about 1.00 p.m., Malarkodi and her daughter, P.W.2, went to the Pachaiamman Temple for worship, in a cycle M.O.10, hired by P.W.2. After reaching the temple, leaving the cycle-M.O.10 and chappal-M.O.11, both worshipped Pachaiamman, offering coconut, betel nuts, etc. just in front of the temple since closed. At the request of Malarkodi, P.W.2 went to another sanctum, to worship Lord Subramania. At that time, both the accused armed with reapers, came there, in a TVS 50 - M.O.12 and assaulted Malarkodi, indiscriminately all over the body including the head. On hearing the noise of Malarkodi and seeing the occurrence, P.W.2 rushed to the spot, where she was warned by the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away in the TVS-50. P.W.2 noticed oozing out of blood and brain from the head. Perturbed by this incident, she ran to the village and informed her father, P.W.3, Thiru Elangovan. On hearing the noise of Malarkodi and seeing the occurrence, P.W.2 rushed to the spot, where she was warned by the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away in the TVS-50. P.W.2 noticed oozing out of blood and brain from the head. Perturbed by this incident, she ran to the village and informed her father, P.W.3, Thiru Elangovan. (g) P.W.3, the husband of Malarkodi, on information by her daughter about the incident, reached the temple and confirming the death, went to Akkanur, to inform the incident to the Village Headman, P.W.1. The information furnished by P.W.3, was reduced into writing by P.W.1 as Ex.P.1. Then, P.W.1 also went to the scene of crime and affirmed the death. Thereafter, P.W.1 prepared his special report, Ex.P.2 and requested his menial, Thangavelu to hand over Exs.P.1 and P2, to Ramanatham Police Station. (h) Thiru Rajendran, P.W.10, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, on receipt of Exs.P.1 & P2 through Thangavelu, on 5.5.1993 at about 8.30 p.m., registered a case in Cr.NO.138/93 under Section 302 I.P.C. under Ex.P.10. The matter was informed to the Inspector of Police, for investigation. (i) Thiru A. Vinayagam (P.W.12), on information from P.W.10, went to Ramanatham Police Station, at about 9.30 p.m. obtained the copy of F.I.R. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of crime, at about 10.00 p.m., inspected the premises, drawn the sketch Ex.P.13 and prepared Ex.P.3 mahazar in the presence of P.Ws.1, and another witness, in addition he made an arrangement for taking photographs (M.O.21). He had examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & 4 on the same day and recorded their statements. Between 12.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. on 6.5.1993, he conducted inquest and prepared Ex.P.14 in the presence of Panchayatdars. Thereafter, with the requisition, Ex.P.11, the body was sent through P.W.9 for postmortem. (j) Dr. Mangayarkarasi on receipt of the requisition, Ex.P.11, on 6.5.1993 at about 11.00 a.m. and on identification of the body, conducted autopsy. She had noticed Tattoo mark on the left hand of Malarkodi, which read @fnzrd; vd;fpw Kj;Jrhkpahy; vd; capUf;F Mgj;J. ,g;gof;F kyh;f;bfho@. She had also noticed the following external injuries and some corresponding internal injuries. External Injuries:- 1. Incised wound of about 9 inches in the parietal bone, bony deep with brain matter coming out. 2. Incised wound of about 2 x 2" over occipital area. Right ear lobe had been cut off. Left ear normal 3. She had also noticed the following external injuries and some corresponding internal injuries. External Injuries:- 1. Incised wound of about 9 inches in the parietal bone, bony deep with brain matter coming out. 2. Incised wound of about 2 x 2" over occipital area. Right ear lobe had been cut off. Left ear normal 3. Left arm big contusion of about 4" just above the elbow joint. 4. A linear contusion in the left fore arm about 6" x 3" just below the elbow joint. 5. A lacerated wound about 1 x 1" just below the above wound. 6. Cyanosin of all fingers except thumb pale out had the abrasion of about 3" x 2 cm on the right fore arm. & Contusion of right had palmar aspect. The doctor P.W.11, considering the effect of the injuries, opined that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injury to the vital organs, which are incorporated in Ex.P.12. (k) After the postmortem, M.Os.13 to 17 recovered from the body of Malarkodi were handed over to the Inspector, which were recovered by him under Ex.P.15 on 6.5.1993 itself. He recovered M.Os.1 to 9 under Ex.P.4 from the scene of crime, in the presence of P.W.4 and another. On the same day, he had also recovered M.Os.11 & 12 under Ex.P.5. On information, P.W.12 arrested the accused at about 10.00 a.m. on 7.5.1993 at Labbai Kudikadu Bus Stand. On examination, the first accused gave Ex.P6 confession and the second accused gave Ex.P7 confession, in the presence of P.W.10 and another. In pursuance of the confession statements, M.Os.12 and M.O.18 were recovered along with M.O.19 under Exs.P8 & P9 respectively. (l) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.12 examined other witnesses also, recovered Ex.P.21 (Hired Cycle Register Book) from the cycle shop. Properties recovered or seized during investigation were sent for chemical examination, as per the request under Ex.P.16, which was complied with by the Court under, Ex.P.17, inviting reports Exs.P.18 & 19. After P.W.12, P.W.13 took up the case for further investigation. The materials so collected, revealed the offence committed by the accused, resulting filing of a final report. (m) The learned trial Judge believing the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5, concluded that there was unassailable motive for the murder. After P.W.12, P.W.13 took up the case for further investigation. The materials so collected, revealed the offence committed by the accused, resulting filing of a final report. (m) The learned trial Judge believing the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5, concluded that there was unassailable motive for the murder. The trial Judge has further concluded, because of the dispute between the deceased and the first accused, regarding money matters and marriage of P.W.5, both the accused joined together, beat the deceased on the fateful day, taking away her life. The trivial contradictions and omission, according to the assessment of the learned trial Judge, have not caused any abrasion over the prosecution case. Thus, concluding and finding no reason to bring the accused under any other offence, slapped the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C., as aforementioned. 8. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Gopinath appearing for the first appellant and the learned counsel for the second appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side). 9. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the lower Court's verdict on the following grounds that: (1) the alleged motives leading to murder are not proved; (2) the trial Court committed an error in believing the oral evidence of P.W.2, daughter of the deceased, who could not be the eye witnesses; (3) the trial Court failed to take into account the delay caused in preferring the complaint that to when the police station was very near, on the way, when P.W.2 went to her village; (4) the oral evidence of D.Ws.1 & 2 would amply prove that P.W.2 herself would have come to the knowledge of murder of her mother, only on the information furnished to her and therefore, she could not be the eye witness; (5) the Village Administrative Officer while preferring the complaint, had not followed the guidelines; (6) to explain the delay, the constable, who submitted the FIR was not examined; (7) the non examination of Poosari of the temple as well as the non examination of cycle shop owner are fatal to the prosecution case; (8) the injuries sustained by the deceased were not connected to each accused and therefore, convicting both the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is beyond the scope of law and (9) that in any event for convicting second accused, there is no material. On the above lines, elaborating the same, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Gopinath urged, for an acquittal. 10. On the other hand, supporting the reasoning and conviction of the trial Court and in opposing, the reasons enumerated by the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend, that the motive for the murder is not only proved by the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 & 6, but also by the intrinsic evidence available on the body of the deceased, that the evidence of P.W.2 is quite natural, being the eye witness, that there is no inordinate delay and if at all any delay is noticed, the same is explained, that on the basis of the confession statements, weapons recovered which contain blood group of the deceased and considering all these unquestionable evidence, the learned trial Judge had rendered a conviction, fitting with the facts, supported by the evidence, which does not warrant any interference. 11. As ruled by the Apex Court, there is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive, for the commission of crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. In this view, the motive may not play any pivotal role, but at the same time, when it is alleged, to find out the probabilities of the case and to accept the evidence available on the side of the prosecution as genuine, it is incumbent upon the Court to assess the motive also, in order to fix the culpability, whether that would be the cause for the murder. 12. It is an admitted fact, that the deceased was having a tea stall under the name of "Malarkodi Tea Stall", that too at the instance of the first accused, who was her paramour. P.W.6 had stated that at the request of the first accused, in order to evict Malarkodi, from the tea stall, he convened a panchayat and at that time, the deceased demanded Rs.60,000/- and jewels for which the accused refused, resulting Malarkodi also refusing to vacate the premises. When this evidence was given so convincingly, in our opinion, the same was not erased by the cross examination, except throwing some causal unacceptable suggestion. 13. The oral evidence of P.W.6 is supported by the oral evidence of P.W.2 also. When this evidence was given so convincingly, in our opinion, the same was not erased by the cross examination, except throwing some causal unacceptable suggestion. 13. The oral evidence of P.W.6 is supported by the oral evidence of P.W.2 also. She would state, that there was dispute between her mother and the first accused, in the money transaction, further affirming that her mother started tea stall, only at the instance of the first accused. It is the further case of P.W.2, that when the first accused attempted to evict Malarkodi, through Panchayat, Malarkodi asserted before the Panchayat, that she should be paid the amount, which she was entitled to and the marriage between P.W.5 and the son of the second accused, should also be performed. It is also the case of P.W.2, that Malarkodi refused to vacate the premises saying that she was having the tea stall, only in the poramboke land. She has further deposed, that the first accused had preferred a complaint against Malarkodi in Ramanatham Police Station. She has further deposed that after the first accused threatened Malarkodi to do away, apprehending danger to her life, she tattooed the words @fnzrd; vd;fpw Kj;Jrhkpahy; vd; capUf;F Mgj;J. ,g;gof;F kyh;f;bfho@. on her left hand. The evidence so given by P.W.2 regarding the motive, in our opinion, not at all shadowed, even by effective cross examination or putting suggestion. In fact, the suggestion would make it clear that the first accused and Malarkodi had illicit intimacy. P.W.5 would state, that she was having love affair with the son of the second accused, though it is not vice versa. We do not find any reason, much less valid reason, to ignore the motive part of the case, which is well proved inspiringly and acceptably. Because of the threat committed by the first accused, as noted by the doctor, there was a tattoo mark, over the left hand of the deceased. In this view, concluding that there was a strong enmity between the deceased and the first accused, we have to find out whether this would be the cause for committing the murder. Even if it is not the cause, as aforementioned at the first instance, if the attack is proved otherwise, there is every possibility of these accused, being roped in, under appropriate penal provisions. 14. Even if it is not the cause, as aforementioned at the first instance, if the attack is proved otherwise, there is every possibility of these accused, being roped in, under appropriate penal provisions. 14. At the request of the investigating officer, on 6.5.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.11 conducted autopsy and noticed six injuries, over the body of Malarkodi. According to the opinion of the doctor, injuries 1 & 2 are fatal, though he would say, that injury 3 & 4 are simple in nature. When the doctor had given evidence, regarding the cause of death of Malarkodi, that is not very much challenged, though an effort was made to bring some of the injuries, as non fatal or simple in nature. Accepting the doctor's evidence, we would conclude, that only because of the injuries sustained by the deceased on the head and all over the body as noted in Ex.P.12, Malarkodi died on 5.5.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. or so. Thus, fixing it is a homicidal violence, next we have to see, who did this violence, taking away the life of Malarkodi. 15. The incident took place according to the prosecution on 5.5.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer would state that Elangovan P.W.3, came to his office and reported the matter at about 4.30 p.m., which was reduced into writing as Ex.P.1. We find in Ex.P.1 also an endorsement of the Village Administrative Officer, giving the time as 5.15 p.m. This complaint accompanied with Ex.P.2 Special Report of the Village Administrative Officer, reached the police station at 8.30 p.m. on the same day as spoken by P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint and registered a case under Ex.P.10, the printed F.I.R. The printed F.I.R. and the complaint reached the hands of the Judicial Magistrate on 6.5.1993 at 2.35 a.m., probably he might have received them in his residence. P.W.1's evidence discloses that the distance between Vagaiyur and Ramanatham is 5 km. The distance between Vagaiyur-Akkanur, where P.W.1 is having his office, is 1 km. 16. P.W.1's evidence discloses that the distance between Vagaiyur and Ramanatham is 5 km. The distance between Vagaiyur-Akkanur, where P.W.1 is having his office, is 1 km. 16. Considering the distance between the police station, and the place of P.W.1 and some delay in the FIR reaching the hands of the Judicial Magistrate, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, would contend that Ex.P.1 ought to have been prepared subsequently, to build the case, as they like, after the inspector came to the scene of occurrence and therefore, it should be construed, the genesis of the case itself is suppressed, screening the real one. It is the further submission that, since the F.I.R. was submitted belatedly to the court, it should be the out come of the deliberation and discussion, and the entire edifice of the prosecution case should also be viewed, doubtfully, giving at least the reasonable benefits of doubt to the accused, taking into consideration, the non examination of the police constable, who took the first information report to the Court. 17. The delay caused in this case, is not an inordinate one, and this kind of delay would ordinarily occur in this kind of cases, considering the status of the complaint, the incident, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station, as well the place of P.W.1, etc. The non examination of the police constable also failed to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. Therefore by the delay of few hours, we are unable to entertain any doubt, as if Ex.P.1 should be the outcome of the deliberation, that too, after the arrival of the investigating officer, with the help of the obliging Village Administrative Officer. The learned counsel for the appellants attempted to create a shadow over Ex.P.1, since it narrates the entire incident, which may act against the accused. We are unable to subscribe our view, as entertained by the learned Senior Counsel. Thus, ignoring the delay, in view of the inspiring evidence available, we have to find out the genuineness of the complaint and the oral evidence. 18. The main attack and bang to shatter the prosecution case is, that P.W.2 could not be the eyewitness. It is the further case of the accused, that PW2 came to know about her mother's death, only on the information furnished by D.W.2 at the instance of D.W.1. 18. The main attack and bang to shatter the prosecution case is, that P.W.2 could not be the eyewitness. It is the further case of the accused, that PW2 came to know about her mother's death, only on the information furnished by D.W.2 at the instance of D.W.1. The accused have taken the burden of proof in this view, to some extent, upon their shoulders, though it is not cast upon them, under criminal jurisprudence. In this context, we have to see, whether the evidence of D.Ws.1 & 2 could be believed, if it could be believed what would be the effect. 19. The Investigating Officer, P.W.12 would admit during the cross examination that he had examined one Poosari S. Pachiamuthu Padayachi and another P. Pachaimuthu Padayachi, who have informed him, that they have informed the death of Malarkodi to the Ex-Chairman of the Panchayat Union, who is examined as D.W.1. It is the case of D.W.1 also that he came to know the death of Malarkodi from S. Pachaimuthu Padayachi and P. Patchaimuthu Padayachi, who were not examined in this case. For that, an adverse comment made in our view, does not deserve any acceptance, since admittedly, they were not the eye witnesses. The oral testimony of P.W.2, and observation mahazar disclose the fact, that the temple was not opened, and that is why, Malarkodi offered coconut, betel nut, etc. at the entrance of the temple, wherefrom they have been recovered, thereby showing the poosaris had no chance to see the incident. D.W.1 would state that on the information furnished by Patchaimuthu, confirming the same, upon visiting the scene of crime, he attempted to contact Ramanatham Police Station, unable to get connection. He further says, thereafter, he phoned up to Petrol Bunk at Ramanatham, which was attended by Selvaraj, D.W.2, to whom he had informed about the death of Malarkodi, requesting him, to inform the same, either to her daughter or to her husband. D.W.2 would state, that he had informed this news through one attender and the said attender has not been examined. An attempt might have been made by D.W.1 even genuinely, to inform the death of Malarkodi, probably even without knowing whether P.W.2 knew the same or not. D.W.2 would state, that he had informed this news through one attender and the said attender has not been examined. An attempt might have been made by D.W.1 even genuinely, to inform the death of Malarkodi, probably even without knowing whether P.W.2 knew the same or not. The case spoken by D.W.2 that P.W.2 was summoned, and on enquiry P.W.2 informed him that Malarkodi had been to temple, appears to be unbelievable, since it appears to our mind, invented, in order to rescue the accused, from the clutches of law. D.W.2 is introduced, as if the death message was conveyed to P.W.2, thereby taking her out of the purview of the eyewitnesses, which we are unable to agree. In this view also, we are unable to doubt, about the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of crime. 20. The conduct of P.W.2 was brought to our notice by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Gopinath, to doubt about her presence in the scene of crime, as well as her subsequent inaction. P.W.2. would state, that after the incident, she ran to the village to inform the death of her mother to P.W.3. then both returned to Vagaiyur Temple along with others, then they went to Akkanur Village, to inform the matter to the Village Administrative Officer at about 4.30 p.m. She admits during cross examination that the resident and tea stall are 200 ft. away from the junction of Thittakudi Road. She further admits, that Ramanatham Police Station is at a distance of 100 ft. from the junction. Therefore, the senior counsel pointed out, if really P.W.2 had witnessed the incident, she ought to have gone to the police station, to lodge the information at the first instance or if not, at least when she returned along with her father, P.W.3. But here, curiously ignoring the police station, which is on the way, they went to Akkanur, where P.W.1 is having office. This is an unnatural course, not fitting with probability, according to the learned Senior Counsel and in this view, he urged us not to accept the testimony of P.W.2, taking her away from the definition of eyewitness. We are unable to agree. After all, P.W.2 an young unmarried village girl and in her presence, her mother was murdered. This is an unnatural course, not fitting with probability, according to the learned Senior Counsel and in this view, he urged us not to accept the testimony of P.W.2, taking her away from the definition of eyewitness. We are unable to agree. After all, P.W.2 an young unmarried village girl and in her presence, her mother was murdered. Therefore, we have to see, what would be the mind set of P.W.2 and her mental condition in the charged atmosphere. She would not have generally thought of preferring a complaint to the police, in order to book the accused and the normal course of thinking of P.W.2 would be, to inform the same immediately to the father, which she did and we find nothing unnatural or strange. 21. P.W.3 would state that he and P.W.2 went to Ramanatham, only to prefer complaint, but had not gone to the police station. His case is, on the advice of one Chellamuthu, not to prefer complaint directly to the police, but to prefer the complaint through the Village Administrative Officer, he went to Akkanur. Considering the rustic nature of P.W.3 and their ignorance regarding the action to be taken forthwith, we are unable to find fault with their conduct, in not preferring the complaint forthwith, to the police station. 22. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 complaint was not given by P.W.2, who had witnessed the incident, whereas on the information supplied by P.W.3, P.W.1 reduced the same into writing, in which P.W.2 has not even attested. On the above basis, the learned Senior Counsel would contend, that Ex.P.1 would not have been given, on the information furnished by P.W.2 and that is why, she has not even attested the same. 23. In support of the above contention, the learned Senior relied on a ruling in Mohan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab (1981 Crl.L.J. 998). In the case involved in the above decision, a conviction was sought to be assailed, on the basis of a dying declaration, in which the relative of the deceased, has not even attested. That dying declaration was found fault, for not taking care to get attested by the wife, who was stated to be present there or the doctor, who was alleged to be present in the hospital, that too, because of the fact, that the dying declaration contained minute details informing concoction or fabrication. Here, this is not the case. That dying declaration was found fault, for not taking care to get attested by the wife, who was stated to be present there or the doctor, who was alleged to be present in the hospital, that too, because of the fact, that the dying declaration contained minute details informing concoction or fabrication. Here, this is not the case. P.W.3 had specifically stated, which was confirmed by P.W.2 also, that due to shock and fear, on seeing the murder of mother, P.W.2 was not in a position to give the details to the Village Administrative Officer, though she conveyed the same to the father, which appears to be probable and acceptable in our view. Hence on the ground that P.W.2 has not attested Ex.P.1, we are unable to remove P.W.2, from the scene of crime. 24. The Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) admits during the cross examination, that as per the guideline, he has not taken three copies and submitted the copies to Tahsildar and the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, according to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, Ex.P.1 should loose its importance. We are unable to agree. The non compliance of the rules, if at all would amount to violation, and irregularity and on that score alone, we are unable to discard Ex.P.1, labeling the same as one, come into existence, after the arrival of the Inspector of Police, to the scene of crime. 25. It is the case of P.W.2 that she and her mother went to the temple in a hired cycle, belonged to one Chellamuthu. The said cycle, M.O.10 was recovered from the scene of crime, as spoken by P.W.12 under Ex.P.5, along with M.O.11 Chappals, belonged to the deceased. The cross examination does not disclose any reason, to doubt about the recovery and in fact, even we are unable to find any suggestion, questioning the recovery. The fact, that the cycle belongs to Chellamuthu, is also not seriously disputed. For these reasons, in our opinion, the non examination of Chellamuthu, would not make any dent in the prosecution case. In the same way, the contradiction available regarding the fact, whether Malarkodi knew cycling or not also, would not cause any abrasion over the prosecution case, to doubt its genuineness. 26. For these reasons, in our opinion, the non examination of Chellamuthu, would not make any dent in the prosecution case. In the same way, the contradiction available regarding the fact, whether Malarkodi knew cycling or not also, would not cause any abrasion over the prosecution case, to doubt its genuineness. 26. The investigating officer P.W.12, arrested the accused on 7.5.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. and according to him, the first accused gave confession (Ex.P.6), leading to the recovery of TVS-50 M.O.12 and the reapers. It is also the further case of P.W.12, that the second accused also gave a confession i.e. Ex.P.7 and thereafter, in pursuance of the same M.O.18 reapers were recovered. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits, that this recovery itself is doubtful, because of two alleged confessions, leading to recovery. Even as per the case of the prosecution, Ex.P6 relates, not only to the disclosure of reapers, but also the disclosure of M.O.12, in which the accused travelled to the scene of crime, then escaped from there. Ex.P7 relates to the disclosure of the reapers alone. Though the second confession said to have been given by the second accused under Ex.P.7 may not be admissible, but that does not mean, we should ignore in toto, Ex.P.6 confession. The over anxious Investigating Officer obtained two confessions, forgetting the fact, the first confession itself had served the purpose. There is nothing wrong in eschewing the second confession and relying on the 1st confession, and on that ground, doubting the investigation, is not possible. P.W.8, who was present at the time of the arrest and confession would state, how P.W.12 arrested the accused and how Exs.P.6 & P7 were obtained from them, though Ex.P7 is redundant. I do not find any reason, to discard the oral testimony of P.W.8, which is supported by the investigating officers' evidence also. Hence, accepting the oral evidence of P.W.8, the trial Court came to the conclusion that only on the basis of the confession given by the first accused, M.Os.12 and 18 were recovered. The eyewitness P.W.2 also identified the vehicle, as the one used by the accused, as well as the weapon viz., M.O.12 & 18, respectively, used by both the accused. 27. The eyewitness P.W.2 also identified the vehicle, as the one used by the accused, as well as the weapon viz., M.O.12 & 18, respectively, used by both the accused. 27. At the request of the investigating officer, the reapers seized, on the basis of the confession of the first accused, were sent for chemical examination, through court, as evidenced by Ex.P.17, which elicited the chemical examination report Ex.P.18 and the Serologist's Report, Ex.P.19. The Forensic Science Department, after examining the two reapers, detected blood and when the same was subjected to further examination for blood grouping, it revealed human 'AB' Group Blood as disclosed by the Serologist's Report, Ex.P.19, which are not seriously questioned. The dresses recovered from the body of Malarkodi were also subjected to chemical examination. It also revealed human 'AB' Group blood, thereby indicating that Malarkodi's blood group is 'AB'. The same blood group was detected in the reapers, which were recovered on the basis of the confession, thereby by all means establishing that these two reapers have been used, for assaulting the deceased Malarkodi. Thus, in our considered opinion, the weapons were connected with the crime and the accused. Thus, fixing the involvement of the accused with the crime, next we have to see, who caused the fatal injuries, to the deceased and what is the offence made out against each. 28. P.W.2, Palaniammal has stated that both the accused had beat her mother over the head and body indiscriminately, thereby causing injuries. She would further state, she was also threatened by the accused and thereafter, escaped from the scene of crime in TVS-50 motorcycle (M.O.12). When both the accused had jointly assaulted the deceased, causing head injuries and other bodily injuries, both must be held responsible, since as aforementioned by us, the doctor's evidence is that injuries 1 & 2 were fatal, which were caused by both the accused. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended, that there is no clinching evidence even through the mouth of P.W.2, who caused which injury and in this view, it is not safe to convict both the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. When two persons jointly, with common intention, assaulted a person, it may not be possible for the eyewitness to say clinchingly, which injury fell on which part of the body. In this view, we are of the opinion that failure of P.W.2 to speak, who caused which injury, would not relieve any one of the accused, creating doubt, from the offence committed by them, that too, in view of the specific evidence given by P.W.2, that both the accused have assaulted her mother over the head also. Postmortem certificate also reveals as spoken by P.W.11, that there were two incised wounds, over the head; one in Parietal region and another over occipital area, which are proved to be fatal causing death instantaneously. After witnessing the incident, P.W.2 reported the matter to P.W.3, the father, who in turn preferred the complaint, as discussed above. We are unable to find any infirmity in the evidence of P.W.2, affecting the root of prosecution, except minor contradictions, which are bound to occur in any case. In this context, we have to remember the motive and the tattoo mark inscribed over the left arm. 29. There was an intuition in the mind of the deceased after the panchayat, that her adamant attitude not to vacate the premises, and insisting the marriage of P.W.5 with the son of the 2nd accused, that because of her questioning, Ganesan would cause bodily harm and to expose the same, in the event of happening, she tattooed the words "fnzrd; vd;fpw Kj;Jrhkpahy; vd; capUf;F Mgj;J. ,g;gof;F kyh;f;bfho@. which proved to be correct. The above words inscribed over the left hand of the deceased were noticed by the doctor also, not challenged. Unless there is strong motive and reasonable apprehension, in the mind of the deceased, she would not have gone to the extent of implicating the first accused, apprehending danger from him, which proved to be correct, for which the second accused also aided. Therefore, analysing the case from all possible and probable angle, we find no reason to discard the oral testimony of P.W.2, who narrated the incident, as in the first information and final report. 30. In the investigation also, we are unable to see any laches or any grey area, to doubt, and imagine any false implication of the accused, even regarding A2. As seen from the oral evidence of D.W.3, a plea of alibi was projected. D.W.3 would state that the second accused performed the first death anniversary of her mother on the date of Chitra Pournami. As seen from the oral evidence of D.W.3, a plea of alibi was projected. D.W.3 would state that the second accused performed the first death anniversary of her mother on the date of Chitra Pournami. There is no evidence even from the mouth of D.W.3, when the mother of the second accused died. In the absence of any such evidence, it is highly unbelievable to accept the plea of alibi projected through D.W.3. Even assuming that there was some ceremony performed by D.W.3, considering the time of incident, it is possible to conclude that because of the satisfactory evidence available on record, that the second accused also would have participated in the attack and that is why, when two reapers were recovered, both contained the human blood of 'AB' group that belonged to the deceased. 31. The learned trial Judge analysing all the fact available on record, supported by the strong attending circumstances, accepting the oral testimony of P.W.2, had come to a just and correct conclusion, in our considered opinion, not warranting any interference by this Court. Hence, we find no substance in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed, confirming the conviction. 32. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon both the accused as per the judgment in S.C.No.123/94 dated 21.4.1995, on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore. The accused, who are on bail are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith, to undergo the remaining period of sentence, failing which the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the accused.