Judgment : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: 1. Babu alias Thuppaki alias Venkatesan, the appellant herein, has been convicted for the offence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the same, this Criminal Appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts, leading to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows: “(a) the first deceased in this case is one Seetha. On 1.2.1999, the said Seetha and the accused Venkatesan came to the lodge, ‘India Cafe Lodge House’, at about 6.15 p.m. The accused engaged the said Seetha to have sexual intercourse with her in the lodge, as the said Seetha is a prostitute. Both of themcame and requested the Lodge Manager P.W.1 Balaji for accommodation. Room No.12 was allotted to them. A sum of Rs.60 was collected from the accused as advance. When P.W.1 asked the accused to fill up the Register, by giving the details regarding his address, the accused informed P.W.1 that he would go and have water and after taking water, he would fill-up the Register. Then, P.W.2 Palani, the Room Boy, took them to the room and opened the room. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to attend the repair work of motor pump. (b) Within a few minutes, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard a scream from Room No.12. They both rushed to the room and found the room was locked from inside. They knocked at the door. The accused opened the door and came out with a bloodstained knife. P.Ws.1 and 2 saw the said Seetha, with bleeding injuries. She told them pointing to the accused that he stabbed her. In the meantime, the accused started running. P.Ws.1 and 2 chased the accused, by raising alarm. (c) At that point of time, the second deceased viz. Viji alias Rajendran, the friend of P.W.1, was sitting near the staircase. P.W.1 asked Viji to catch hold of the accused. Accordingly, Viji attempted to catch hold of the accused. However, the accused stabbed him on his left cheek and left side chest and ran away. One Sampath Chetty, the father of P.W.1, who was sitting at the entrance of the lodge, also tried to catch hold of the accused. The accused also stabbed him on his buttocks and ran away. Accordingly, Viji attempted to catch hold of the accused. However, the accused stabbed him on his left cheek and left side chest and ran away. One Sampath Chetty, the father of P.W.1, who was sitting at the entrance of the lodge, also tried to catch hold of the accused. The accused also stabbed him on his buttocks and ran away. (d) The said Viji, after sustaining the injuries on his left side chest, fell unconscious. P.Ws.1 and 2 arranged an Auto and took Viji to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, where the Doctor attached to the Hospital, pronounced him dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 came back to the lodge and found the said Seetha dead. (e) Both P.W.1 and his injured father Sampath Chetty went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. The case was registered for the offences under Secs.324 and 302, I.P.C., P.W.20 the Inspector of Police, after registering the case, came to the spot and observed all the formalities. He prepared Ex.P-2 observation Mahazar and Ex.P-35 rough sketch. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the first deceased Seetha and the corresponding Inquest Report is Ex.P-36. Then, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the second deceased Viji in the Hospital and the Inquest Report is Ex.P-37. (f) P.W.11 Dr.Yasmin attached to the Government Hospital, Vellore, conducted post mortem on the body of the first deceased Seetha and found injuries on the lower lobe of the left lung on the lateral aspect, an incised wound over the left side of the epigastric region and two parallel incised wounds on the lateral aspect of the middle of the left forearm. He issued Ex.P-13 post mortem certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased Seetha would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs like liver and lung. (g) P.W.12 Dr.Kodandapani conducted post mortem on the dead body of the second deceased Viji and issued Ex.P-15 post mortem certificate. He found five external injuries on the body of the second deceased. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organs heart and left lung. (h) The injured Sampath Chettiar was examined by the Casualty Doctor P.W.10 on 2.9.1999 at about 6.45 p.m. and issued Ex. P-11 Wound Certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organs heart and left lung. (h) The injured Sampath Chettiar was examined by the Casualty Doctor P.W.10 on 2.9.1999 at about 6.45 p.m. and issued Ex. P-11 Wound Certificate. According to the Doctor, the said Sampath Chettiar sustained a simple injury on his right buttock. (i) Then, P.W.20 arrested the accused on 8.2.1999 in the presence of P.W.8 Nallamuthu. In pursuance of his confession, P.W.20 recovered M.O.14 knife concealed by the accused in a bush near Rajakoil at Gudiyatham. Then, he sent a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct Identification Parade. (j) P.W.18 Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, in pursuance of the instructions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, fixed the date of Identification Parade as 18.2.1999 and conducted the Identification Parade on that, day. In the Identification Parade, P.W.1 Balaji, P.W.2 Palani and P.W.6 Abdul Rahman identified the accused correctly. (k) In the meantime, P.W.20 arranged for examination of the witnesses before the Magistrate under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. The accused was also sent to the Magistrate to record his confession under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. (l) All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sec.302 (two counts) and 324 I.P.C.” 3. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.39 were filed and M.Os.1 to 24 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned, with reference to the incriminating materials, under Sec.313 Crl.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime, in question. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D-1, the statement given by the accused before the Magistrate under Sec.164 Crl.P.C., was marked. 5. The trial Court ultimately, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts). But, however, acquitted the accused for the charge under Sec.324, I.P.C., since Sampath Chetty, the injured, died during the course of trial. Aggrieved by this, the accused has filed this appeal. 6. But, however, acquitted the accused for the charge under Sec.324, I.P.C., since Sampath Chetty, the injured, died during the course of trial. Aggrieved by this, the accused has filed this appeal. 6. Mr.V.Karthic, the learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence and would contend that the prosecution case would bristle with several infirmities, especially when P.W.2 would admit that he was arrested four days after the occurrence and he was detained in the Police Station and at that time, he saw the accused in the Police Station. As such, the identification of the accused by him in the Identification Parade would not be of any use. He would further point out various contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He would also submit that the various details given in the evidence, of P.W.1 have not been mentioned in Ex.P-1 and as such, the improvements, with reference to the material particulars, would make it clear that P.W.1 is not a reliable, witness. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. 7. On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Prosecutor. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and also gone through the records. 9. According to the prosecution, on 1.2.1999 at about 6.15 p.m., both the accused and the first deceased Seetha came to the lodge and asked for accommodation. After collecting Rs.60 advance, they were allowed to occupy Room No-12. Then, within minutes, P.W.1 Manager and P.W.2 Room Boy, heard a scream from the room. When they rushed to the room, they found it was locked from inside. When they tapped the door, the accused opened the door and came out with a knife. They saw the first deceased Seetha pointing to the accused that he stabbed her. Then, P.Ws.1and 2 tried to catch hold of the accused. But, he ran from the second floor of the Lodge to the ground floor. P.W.1 told his friend, the second deceased Viji, who was sitting near the stair case, to catch hold of the accused as he attacked a lady in the room. Then, the second deceased Viji, tried to catch hold of the accused and unfortunately, the accused stabbed him also on his left side chest and left cheek and ran away. P.W.1 told his friend, the second deceased Viji, who was sitting near the stair case, to catch hold of the accused as he attacked a lady in the room. Then, the second deceased Viji, tried to catch hold of the accused and unfortunately, the accused stabbed him also on his left side chest and left cheek and ran away. On seeing this, Sampath Chetty, the owner of the lodge and the father of P.W.1, came near to the accused and tried to catch hold of him. But, he was also attacked by the accused and then the accused ran away from the scene. 10. P.W.1, on seeing that his friend Viji was attacked and he fell down on the floor with injuries, immediately arranged an Auto and taken the said Viji to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, where the Hospital authorities pronounced the said Viji dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 came back to the Lodge and found the said Seetha also dead in the room. Therefore, P.W.1 and his father Sampath Chetty, who was also injured, went to the Police Station and gave a complaint. 11. The report given by P.W.1 to the Police is the earliest document in this case. Though the investigating agency has examined the witnesses to show how the occurrence had taken place, they have not chosen to investigate further with reference to the motive. But from Ex.P-38, judgment dated 31.3.1997 made in C.C.No.221 of 1997 by the Judicial Magistrate No.4 against the said Seetha, it is clear that the first deceased Seetha is a woman of easy virtue and also engaged in flesh trade. 12. Further, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that when the accused opened the room and went out, the first deceased called P.W.1 by his name and informed him that she was attacked by the accused. This would indicate that she was engaged by the accused for prostitution and as she knows this lodge, she brought the accused and that is the reason they requested accommodation in the lodge. Further, it is clear from Ex.P-1 that P.W.1 was able to mention the name of the first deceased in Ex.P-1 Ex.P-1 was received by the Magistrate at 2.30 a.m., next day i.e. on 2.2.1999. These things would indicate that the first deceased and P.W.1 were known to each other. Further, it is clear from Ex.P-1 that P.W.1 was able to mention the name of the first deceased in Ex.P-1 Ex.P-1 was received by the Magistrate at 2.30 a.m., next day i.e. on 2.2.1999. These things would indicate that the first deceased and P.W.1 were known to each other. However, nobody was able to get the particulars relating to the identity of the accused, who accompanied the deceased to occupy the Room No.12. Only eight days later, P.W.20 arrested the accused and on his confession, M.O.14 knife was also recovered. 13. Thereupon, in order to confirm the fact that he is the culprit, P.W.20 Inspector of Police requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, to arrange for the Identification Parade. P.W.18 Magistrate, in pursuance of the instructions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, conducted the Identification Parade on 18.2.1999, in which the accused was correctly identified by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6. 14. P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak about the accused coming out of the room with weapon and attacking the second deceased Viji. P.W.6 would speak about the accused attacking Sampath Chetty and running away from the accused, after the occurrence. 15. The particulars given in Ex.P-1 with reference to the attack made on the first deceased and the second deceased, in our view, has been sufficiently corroborated by the other materials. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 would say that the accused came out of the room with the knife and the first deceased pointed towards the accused that she was stabbed by him. The reference about this oral Dying Declaration has been mentioned in Ex.P-1 itself. After arrest, within ten days, the Identification Parade was conducted by P.W.18, in which P.Ws.12 and 6 have correctly identified the accused. 16. It is true, a suggestion had been made to P.W.1 that the accused was shown to him in the Police Station, even before the parade, which had been denied, It is also true that the accused complained to the Magistrate, after the Identification Parade is over, that the witnesses came to the Police Station and saw him. But, curiously, this statement of complaint that he was shown to the witnesses, even before the parade, has not been spoken to by the accused, in his statement given by him under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. or in statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. to the Magistrate on 15.2.1999. 17. But, curiously, this statement of complaint that he was shown to the witnesses, even before the parade, has not been spoken to by the accused, in his statement given by him under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. or in statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. to the Magistrate on 15.2.1999. 17. On the other hand, when P.W.2 was confronted with reference to that, P.W.2 would state that after arrest, within four days of the occurrence, he was taken to he Police Station and in the Police Station, he identified the accused as the culprit. So, it cannot be contended that the accused was shown by the Police to the witnesses in the Police Station, prior to the Identification Parade and only on that basis, he was identified by the Witnesses. 18. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the observation made by this Court in A.Balasubramaniam v. State, by Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai 2005 MLJ.(Crl.) 121, wherein it is held: “As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Radha Ballabh and others v. State of U.P. (1995)2 Crimes 473, held that identification is only a part of the investigation and unless there are good reasons to doubt the proceedings, the same cannot be rejected on mere suspicion that the accused might have been shown to the witnesses.” This observation would squarely apply, in all force, to the present facts of the case. 19. As indicated above, the accused was arrested, as stated by P.W.20, and 8.2.1999 and bloodstained weapon was also recovered from him. It contained human blood, as per Ex.P-21 serological report. In the Identification Parade conducted by P.W.18, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 identified the accused. If we look at the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, and Ex.P-1 complaint, it is quite clear that the evidence adduced by these witnesses are natural and there is nothing to indicate that there is any necessity for these witnesses to falsely implicate the accused in the offence. 20. In view of the above circumstances, we are to conclude that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court, for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts) is perfectly justified. 21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. 22. 20. In view of the above circumstances, we are to conclude that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court, for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., (two counts) is perfectly justified. 21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed. 22. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Sessions Case No.132 of 2000, dated 24.10.2002, is confirmed.