Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Shankar alias Thengaiperumal, appellant herein was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year R.I. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: a) P.W.1, Ravi is the son of the deceased No.1 Subramanian. Deceased No.2 is the elder brother of the deceased No.1. All were residing in the same house. Accused Shankar alias Thengai Perumal is the resident of the same village. His house is situate opposite to their house. b) On the evening of 1.11.1996, P.W.1 Ravi went to the house of one Sundararaj, P.W.10 to receive the ploughing charges. At that time, the accused Shankar was present. On an earlier occasion, the accused has received a loan of Rs.50/- from P.W.1. On seeing the accused, P.W.1 demanded repayment of the said loan and the accused told that he would not give back the amount and he could do whatever he wanted. Due to this, there was a quarrel, which resulted in a scuffle between the accused and P.W.1. In the said quarrel, both sustained injuries. P.W.1 returned to his house and informed this to his father, deceased No.1. Deceased No.1 went to the house of the accused and questioned his act. Next day at about 8.00 a.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased and damaged the tiles of the house of the deceased No.1. P.W.11 Durairaj came there and intervened. c) On 4.11.1996 at about 5.30 a.m., the deceased No.1 Subramanian went to the tea-shop belonged to P.W.7 Dhanalakshmi and bought tea in a small vessel (Sombu). Then, he came out of the tea-shop. Suddenly, the accused appeared at the scene of occurrence and started to attack the deceased No.1 Subramanian with a spade wooden handle with two iron rings. Due to the injuries inflicted on the head, the deceased No.1 Subramanian fell down. On noticing this attack, P.W.1 went to his house and brought the deceased No.2, Narayanasamy. When deceased No.2 Narayanasamy, came and asked the accused not to beat the deceased No.1, the accused attacked deceased No.2 Narayanasamy also and caused injuries on his head with spade wooden handle. As a result of this, both the deceased fell down with bleeding injuries. On noticing this attack, P.W.1 went to his house and brought the deceased No.2, Narayanasamy. When deceased No.2 Narayanasamy, came and asked the accused not to beat the deceased No.1, the accused attacked deceased No.2 Narayanasamy also and caused injuries on his head with spade wooden handle. As a result of this, both the deceased fell down with bleeding injuries. When the witnesses raised a hue and cry, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Hospital at Srirangam. P.W.1 accompanied the victims/deceased. d) P.W.2 Doctor Panneerselvam attached to Srirangam Government Hospital admitted the deceased No.1 as in-patient on 4.11.1996 at about 7.00 a.m., and found six injuries on the body of the deceased No.1. He issued the Accident Register, Ex.P.2. Deceased No.1 was found unconscious. Then he was given treatment. However, he died at 7.05 a.m. After giving treatment to Deceased No.2 Narayanasamy, P.W.2 issued Ex.P.3 wound certificate. Then, deceased No.2 was referred to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli for further treatment. e) P.W.1, Ravi went to Srirangam Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P.1 to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 8.00 a.m. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.16 is the First Information Report. Since P.W.1 was found with injuries, he was also sent to the Government Hospital at Srirangam for treatment. P.W.3 doctor examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.4, Accident Register. f) On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.13, Circle Inspector of Police went to the spot at about 9.30 a.m. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth. Then, he went to the Government Hospital, Srirangam and conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. The Inquest Report is Ex.P.18. After completion of the inquest, he sent the dead body for post mortem to the doctor. g) In the meantime, P.W.13 received the death intimation of the deceased No.2, Narayanasamy from the Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital at 2.15 p.m. He altered the offence from Section 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. as double murder and prepared Express Report Ex.P.19. h) P.W.14, Dr.Thiagarajan commenced post-mortem on 4.11.1996 at 2.30 p.m. and found six injuries on the body of the deceased No.1. Ex.P.22 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor. h) P.W.14, Dr.Thiagarajan commenced post-mortem on 4.11.1996 at 2.30 p.m. and found six injuries on the body of the deceased No.1. Ex.P.22 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor. According to him, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and due to the injury to the brain and brain vessels. i) In respect of the death of the second deceased, P.W.13 went to Tiruchirapalli Hospital and conducted inquest and examined the witnesses.Ex.P.20 is the inquest report. He sent the body to the doctor for post-mortem. j) P.W.5 Doctor conducted post-mortem on 5.11.1996 at 9.00 a.m. and found seven injuries on the body of the deceased No.2 and he gave opinion in Ex.P.7 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would have died of shock and hemorrhage and fracture of skull and injury to the brain. k) In the meantime, on 5.11.1996 at 8.00 p.m. the Inspector of Police, P.W.13 arrested the accused and in pursuance of his confession, P.W.13 recovered M.O.1, spade wooden handle from him. l) After observing all the formalities, he completed the investigation. Then, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.(two counts) before the committal Court. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.22 were filed and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. The plea of the accused for 313 questioning, is one of self-defence. 4. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302(two counts) I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder. This judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge before this Court. 5. Mr. K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 is not in consonance with the medical evidence adduced by P.W.14 and as such, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the post-mortem report, Ex.P.22 in respect of the deceased No.1 and the evidence of P.W.14 would show that the deceased must have taken food two hours prior to the time of death. In view of the specific evidence adduced by P.W.14, the occurrence would have taken place only on the night of 3.11.1996 and not on the early morning of 4.11.1996. In view of the specific evidence adduced by P.W.14, the occurrence would have taken place only on the night of 3.11.1996 and not on the early morning of 4.11.1996. He would further submit that the evidence available on record as well as the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. given by the accused and the evidence of the doctor, P.W.4 who speaks about the injuries on the head of the accused would make it clear that the accused had acted in exercise of self-defence and as such, the accused is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. To substantiate his contention, he cited a decision in MUNSHI PRASAD v. STATE OF BIHAR ((2002) 1 S.C. 351). 6. In reply to this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the materials available on record would clearly show that the occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution and the ocular evidence has been corroborated sufficiently by the medical evidence and the opinion of P.W.14 regarding time of death is only an opinion and it cannot be acted upon. He further submitted that the ocular account of the occurrence has been clearly established by the eye-witnesses. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged on either side. 8. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7, we have no hesitation to hold that they are natural and reliable witnesses. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from them that they speak falsehood against the accused. 9. According to P.W.1, he saw that both the deceased were beaten up with the spade wooden handle, M.O.1, with the result, both of them fell down with bleeding injuries. P.W.1 had taken them to Srirangam Government Hospital, where P.W.2 doctor gave treatment to both the deceased. Since the second deceased was in a serious condition, he was referred to Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital. Despite the treatment given to the first deceased, he died at 7.05 a.m. on 4.11.1996. Thereafter, P.W.1 came to the Srirangam police station at 8.00 a.m. and gave Ex.P.1 complaining to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police. 10. The very fact that P.W.1 instead of going to the police station to give a complaint against the accused went straightaway to the hospital would show that he wanted to save the lives of his father and senior paternal uncle. 10. The very fact that P.W.1 instead of going to the police station to give a complaint against the accused went straightaway to the hospital would show that he wanted to save the lives of his father and senior paternal uncle. Under these circumstances, we are not able to hold that P.W.1 gave false complaint against the accused. 11. It is true that an occurrence had taken place on 1.11.1996 in which both sustained injuries. According to P.W.1 on 1.11.1996, when he went to the house of Sundarraj for collecting ploughing charges, he saw the accused and demanded repayment of loan of Rs.50/- and the accused refused to pay the amount and there was a quarrel. According to P.W.1, he pelted stones at the accused and in retaliation, the accused also bit on the chest of P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the doctor, P.W.4 who examined the accused on 5.11.1996 that he found only injuries caused by pelting of stones and did not find any injuries caused by spade wooden handle. It is not necessary for P.W.1 to take revenge on the accused on the basis of the occurrence that took place on 1.11.1996. It is also not necessary to give false complaint against the accused in respect of the serious injuries on head sustained by both the deceased on head. 12. It is to be pointed out in this context that the act of double murder was caused by a single accused. As indicated above, P.W.1 did not go even to the police station which is very near to the scene of occurrence. As a matter of fact, only after the death of the first deceased, he went to the police station and gave the complaint. Apart from that, there are two other witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.6 and 7. P.W.6 Shankar who was taking tea at that time also gave the narration of the incident corroborating the version of P.W.1. 13. The most important evidence in this case is the evidence of P.W.7, Dhanalakshmi who is the tea shop owner. On going through her evidence, we find that it appears to have a ring of truth. P.W.7 admittedly, is an independent witness. There is no doubt that the occurrence had taken place in front of her tea shop near chavadi. Therefore, P.W.7 is the competent witness to speak about the occurrence. On going through her evidence, we find that it appears to have a ring of truth. P.W.7 admittedly, is an independent witness. There is no doubt that the occurrence had taken place in front of her tea shop near chavadi. Therefore, P.W.7 is the competent witness to speak about the occurrence. She gave the details clearly as to how the occurrence had taken place and how both the deceased were attacked by the accused. 14. There is no dispute in the fact that the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 has been mentioned in Ex.P.1, complaint. Ex.P.1 had been given at 8.00 a.m. on 4.11.1996 to P.W.12. The complaint and the F.I.R. reached the Court at 11.00 a.m. on the very same day. As such, there is no delay either in lodging the complaint or in despatching the First Information Report to the Court. Under those circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 would clearly prove the occurrence in which both the deceased were done to death. 15. Much was said about P.W.14 who said that death would have occurred 10 hours or 11 hours prior to post-mortem. According to him, the occurrence would have taken place at 5.00 a.m. and the deceased No.1 died at 7.05 a.m. P.W.2 who admitted the deceased No.1 would categorically state that the deceased was admitted in the hospital, at 7.00 a.m. and in spite of the treatment, the deceased No.1 died. There is no reason to doubt his evidence. The evidence of P.W.14 which is merely the opinion evidence may not be given much importance. 16. According to the accused, the occurrence had taken place on 3.11.1996 night at 11.00 p.m. Nothing has been elicited from any of the witnesses that the accused sustained injuries during the course of the occurrence. Similarly, nothing was culled out from P.Ws.6 and 7 or no suggestions were put to them, with reference to exercise of private defence in the alleged occurrence which took place on 3.11.1996. 17. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the accused has not established his case of self-defence. On the other hand, through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7, the case of prosecution has been clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt. 17. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the accused has not established his case of self-defence. On the other hand, through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7, the case of prosecution has been clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused imposed by the trial Court.