JUDGMENT M. JEYAPAUL, J. The sole accused, who was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC (2 Counts) and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for each count, has preferred the present criminal appeal. 2. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 26 witnesses were examined and 40 documents and 29 material objects were marked. Three documents were marked, but, no evidence was let in on the side of defence. 3. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the witnesses, reads as follows: P.W.9 Baby is the co-sister of the deceased Vijaya. The husband of Vijaya had passed away in the year 2003. The deceased Vijaya is the aunt's granddaughter of P.W.1 Madheswari. After the demise of her husband Palanisamy, the deceased Vijaya came down to reside near the house of P.W.1 Madheswari. Accused Manickam also set up his residence in one of the houses in the very same row about two months prior to the occurrence. Accused Manickam had developed illicit relationship with the deceased Vijaya and used to frequent her house. On 18.2.2007, at about 7.00 p.m., Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan were in the house of P.W.1 Madheswari. Having left Guna @ Kathiravan in the house of P.W.1 Madheswari, Vijaya proceeded to her house for preparing the dinner at her house. Guna @ Kathiravan stayed back in the house of P.W.1 Madheswari and completed his non-vegetarian dinner and thereafter, he was taken by Vijaya to her house. P.W.12 Shanmugam is the friend of accused Manickam. On 18.2.2007, at about 8.00 p.m., he met accused Manickam and they proceeded to Mohan Theatre and watched second show Tamil movie "EE" and thereafter, they proceeded to their respective houses. P.W.10 Iyyappan, who was an employee under P.W.11 Regupathy-Hotelier, spotted accused Manickam walking along Villarasam Mariamman Temple Street at about 2.00 a.m.. P.W.7 Sakthivel saw accused Manickam entering into the house of the deceased Vijaya at about 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007, when he came out to pass urine. P.W.8 Gopi, son of P.W.2 Arumugam - House owner of the said row of houses, witnessed accused Manickam proceeding to his house emerging out of the house of the deceased Vijaya at about 2.15 a.m. on 19.2.2007. P.W.13 Murugesan is having workshop near Arularasi Mariamman Temple Street and at about 3.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007 he saw accused Manickam going over there. P.W.13 Murugesan is having workshop near Arularasi Mariamman Temple Street and at about 3.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007 he saw accused Manickam going over there. He asked accused Manickam where he was proceeding. Accused Manickam replied that he was going to his village. P.W.13 Murugesan found the accused carrying something in his hands. P.W.14 Jeganathan, Tea Stall Owner, would depose that accused Manickam came down to his shop and purchased three cigarettes having paid Rs. 10/-. P.W.1 Madheswari having found that Guna @ Kathiravan was not ready to board the auto rickshaw to proceed to his school at about 8.30 a.m. on 19.2.2007, she called Vijaya, but, there was no positive response from her house nor did the boy come out from the house to proceed to the school. Therefore, P.W.1 Madheswari went to the house of Vijaya and found that the door was just closed and she opened the door and found that Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan were lying dead. Injuries were found in the neck as well as in the right hand of Vijaya. Guna @ Kathiravan also had sustained injury in his neck. The articles found in the house were not tampered with. She came out of the house and raised hue and cry. P.W.1 Madheswari proceeded to Chithode Police Station and gave Exhibit P-1 Statement to P.W.25 Sub-Inspector of Police Senthilkumar, who recorded the same and registered a case in Crime No. 80 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC. He prepared Exhibit P-33 Express First Information Report and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the Higher Officials through P.W.23 Grade I Constable Jayaraman. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam took up the case for investigation. Having alerted the Sniffer Dog Squad and Finger Print Expert, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007. He drew Exhibit P-34 Rough sketch, reflecting the scene of crime. P.W.19 Arivarasu took M.O.15-series Photographs of the scene of occurrence. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam also prepared Exhibit P-11 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.17 V.A.O. Ramamurthy and Another witness. He held inquest on the dead bodies of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Reports Exhibits P-35 and P-36. P.W.19 Arivarasu took M.O.15-series Photographs of the scene of occurrence. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam also prepared Exhibit P-11 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.17 V.A.O. Ramamurthy and Another witness. He held inquest on the dead bodies of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Reports Exhibits P-35 and P-36. At about 3.30 p.m. on the same day, he recovered M.Os.1 and 2 Pillows; M.O.3 Blood stained Lime mortar; M.O.4 Sample Lime mortar; M.Os.5 and 6 Blood stained Mats; M.O.7 Shirt; M.O.8 Blood stained Cement Mortar; M.O.9 Sample Cement Mortar and M.O.10 Blood stained TVS 50 XL Owner's Manual Book under Exhibit P-12 Mahazar. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam examined P.W.1 Madheswari, P.W.2 Arumugam, P.W.3 Namasivayam, P.W.4 Vasanthi, P.W.5 Arumugham, P.W.6 Senthilkumar, P.W.9 Baby, P.W.10 Iyyappan, P.W.11 Regupathy, P.W.13 Murugesan and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.15 Dr. Sakthivel having received the requisitions from P.W.26 Inspector Selvam to conduct post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan, commenced the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Vijaya, aged 21 years, at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.2.2007 and found the following appearances and external and internal injuries - "Appearances found at the post-mortem: Rigor mortis present in right lower limb. External Injuries: 1. 15cm x 0.5cm horizontally linear cut injury with depth of sub-cutaneous tissue right side neck. 2. 20cm x 5cm deep cut horizontal over left side of front of neck exposing torn blood vessels, and muscles of left neck. 3. 7cm x 1cm x deep incised wound extending from 1st web space to hypothenar area exposing cut tendons of right hand. 4. Multiple abrasions present over right thigh, right knee, right foot. Internal Injuries: 1. Hyoid - Intact. 2. Stomach - Empty. 3. Uterus - Empty. 4. External genetalia - Intact. Other viscera intact pale." He has opined that the deceased Vijaya would appear to have expired 12-16 hrs. prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. Exhibit P-4 Is the Post-mortem certificate and Exhibit P-5 is the Final Opinion, issued by him; He also commenced post-mortem on the dead body of Guna @ Kathiravan, aged 4 years, at about 5.00 p.m. on 19.2.2007 and found the following appearances and external and internal injuries- "Appearances found at the post-mortem: Rigor mortis present in left lower limb. External Injuries: 1. External Injuries: 1. 12cm x 5cm x deep horizontally cut injuries across the midline in front of the neck exposing cut trachea, blood vessels, muscles of the neck. Internal Injuries: 1. Hyoid - Intact. 2. Stomach - Empty. 3. Viscerae - Intact and Pale. 4. Head and Spine - Intact. 5. External genetaiia - Intact." He has opined that the deceased Guna @ Kathiravan would appear to have expired 12-16 hrs. prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. Exhibit P-7 is the Post-mortem certificate and Exhibit P-8 is the Final Opinion, issued by him. P.W.21 Kalaiselvi, Woman Constable, seized M.O.19 Nose screw; M.O.20 Ear stud-pair; M.O.21 Imitated Bangles-pair; M.O.22 severed Earthen Beads; M.O.23 Saree, M.O.24 Blouse and M.O.25 Inskirt from the body of Vijaya and entrusted the same to P.W.26 Inspector Selvam under Exhibit P-19 Special Report. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam also lifted the Finger Prints of the deceased Vijaya, the deceased Guna @ Kathiravan, P.W.9 Baby and one Ponnusamy and sent the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate under Exhibit P-37 Requisition for despatching the same for Finger Print Examination. On 20.2.2007, accused Manickam was arrested near Bavani bus stop at Chithode Town Police limit in the presence of P.W.18 V.A.O. Murugan and Another witness. He gave confession statement voluntarily. He took the witnesses as well as P.W.26 Inspector Selvam to his house and produced M.O.12 Blood stained Full shirt and M.O.13 Blood stained trousers and the same were recovered under Exhibit P-14 Mahazar in the presence of the very same witnesses. On the basis of Exhibit P-13 Admissible portion found in the confession statement voluntarily given by accused Manickam, M.O.14 Knife was recovered from a burial ground near Kalingarayanpalayam in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. Thereafter, the Finger Print of accused Manickam was lifted and he was remanded to judicial custody. All the material objects recovered were despatched to the learned Judicial Magistrate under Form 95. On 20.2.2007, P.W.26 Inspector Selvam examined P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.12 Shanmugam, P.W.14 Jeganathan, P.W.18 V.A.O. Murugan and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent Exhibit P-38 Requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, to despatch the Finger Prints lifted in this case to the Finger Print Expert for the purpose of comparison. P.W.16 Dr. Lakshmi, on requisition by P.W.26 Inspector Selvam, examined accused Manickam and issued Potency Certificate. He sent Exhibit P-38 Requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, to despatch the Finger Prints lifted in this case to the Finger Print Expert for the purpose of comparison. P.W.16 Dr. Lakshmi, on requisition by P.W.26 Inspector Selvam, examined accused Manickam and issued Potency Certificate. P.W.20 Felix Stephen having compared the Finger Prints sent for examination, submitted Exhibit P-18 Report, dated 28.1.2008, that the Right Thumb Finger Impression lifted from accused Manickam did tally With the Finger Print lifted from M.O.10 Blood stained TVS 50 XL Owner's Manual Book. P.W.24 Head Clerk attached to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, spoke about Exhibit P-23 Requisition sent by P.W.26 Inspector Selvam for sending the material objects for chemical examination; Exhibit P-24 Covering letter sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Chemical Examiner and Exhibit P-26 Chemical Examiner's Report and Exhibit P-27 Serologist's Report received from the Chemical Examiner. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam having completed the investigation, laid the Final Report as against accused Manickam for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). 4. The incriminating circumstances spoken to by the witnesses examined by the prosecution were put to the accused in the form of questionnaire. The accused came out with a version that he was not involved in the occurrence and that a false case was foisted on him. Under Section 233(2) CrPC, he also submitted a written statement in which he has stated that he having completed his work in the Hotel, came down to his house at about 11.00 p.m on 18.2.2007 and went to bed. Only in the morning, at about 8.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007, he heard some commotion outside the house and he came to know that Vijaya and her son Guna @ Kathiravan were murdered. The Police personnel from Chithode Police Station came down to the scene of occurrence. P.W.9 Baby and her brother-in-law Ponnusamy also came down to the scene of occurrence. He extended all co-operation to the Investigation Official during the course of investigation. But unfortunately, he was taken to the Police Station in the very same day evening and was tortured and his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained in white papers. He was also threatened that he should not disclose anything to the judicial Magistrate. No confession was given as alleged by the prosecuting agency and no recovery was made at his instance. He was also threatened that he should not disclose anything to the judicial Magistrate. No confession was given as alleged by the prosecuting agency and no recovery was made at his instance. He pleaded that he was an innocent person. 5. The trial Court having heavily relied upon the chain of circumstances spoken to by P.W.1 Madheswari, P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.10 Iyyappan, P.W.11 Regupathy, P.W.12 Shanmugam, P.W.13 Murugesan and P.W.14 Jeganathan in the background of Finger Print Expert's evidence, Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologist's Report, rendered a verdict of conviction and sentence against the accused as stated supra. 6. There is no ocular witness in this case to speak about the occurrence. Though it is a case of double murder, no ocular evidence is available on record to rope in the accused straight away for the offence under Section 302 IPC (2 Counts). P.W.1 Madheswari and P.W.9 Baby have spoken to the fact that accused Manickam had developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Vijaya. Inspite of rigourous cross-examination, the defence could not demolish the version that accused Manickam developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Vijaya. There is also no reason to reject their testimonies. 7. P.W.12 Shanmugam, who is none other than the friend of accused Manickam, has categorically stated that on 18.2.2007 accused Manickam and himself proceeded to watch second show Tamil Film "EE" and thereafter, accused Manickam proceeded to his house. P.W.12 Shanmugam being the friend of accused Manickam, could not have come out with falsehood before the Court to rope in his own friend. 8. P.W.10 Iyyappan, employed under P.W.11 Regupathy-Hotelier, has spotted accused Manickam at about 2.00 a.m. on Villarasam Mariamman Temple Street, which proceeds to the row of houses where accused Manickam and the deceased resided. P.W.10 Iyyappan had already served along with accused Manickam in a hotel. No wonder, he could recollect the presence of accused Manickam at the odd hour on the fateful day. P.W.7 Sakthivel, who was the neighbour of the deceased Vijaya, is a driver by profession. He had spotted accused Manickam entering into the house of the deceased Vijaya at about 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007 when he was proceeding to the bathroom for passing urine. P.W.8 Gopi is none other than the son of P.W.2 Arumugam, house owner of the deceased Vijaya. He had spotted accused Manickam entering into the house of the deceased Vijaya at about 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007 when he was proceeding to the bathroom for passing urine. P.W.8 Gopi is none other than the son of P.W.2 Arumugam, house owner of the deceased Vijaya. He has categorically deposed that when he came out of his house for the purpose of passing urine, he saw accused Manickam emerging out of the house of the deceased Vijaya at about 2.15 a.m. on 19.2.2007. Not only the deceased Vijaya, but also accused Manickam had taken their respective portions of the houses on rent from P.W.2 Arumugam, father of P.W.8 Gopi and no motive could be attributed to P.W.8 Gopi. 9. The next circumstance is spoken to by P.W.13 Murugesan, car mechanic. He saw accused Manickam at about 3.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007. In fact, he asked him where he was proceeding. Accused Manickam, who was carrying something in his hands, replied that he was proceeding to his village. Both, the deceased and the accused, were known to P.W.13 Murugesan. Therefore, he had enquired about the programme of accused Manickam at the odd hour when he was in the workshop. His evidence is found to be quite natural. 10. P.W.14 Jeganathan comes out with yet another circumstance to rope in accused Manickam In the crime of murder. Accused Manickam came down to his shop and purchased three cigarettes having paid Rs. 10/- at about 3.30 a.m. on 19.2.2007. 11. The prosecution has established through the aforesaid testimonies of the witnesses examined on their side that both the deceased were proceeded to their house at 9.30 p.m. on 18.2.2007. If at all the deceased had scheduled to leave the house during night, they would have definitely informed P.W.1 Madheswari. The evidence of P.W.1 Madheswari would go to show that both of them had gone to their house only for sleeping during night. P.W.1 Madheswari's evidence would go to establish that both the deceased were in their house on the fateful day. The testimony of P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.10 Iyyappan, P.W.12 Shanmugam, P.W.13 Murugesan and P.W.14 Jeganathan would establish that accused Manickam having entered into the house of the deceased Vijaya at 2.00 a.m., came out of her house at 2.15 a.m. and then proceeded to his village. 12. The testimony of P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.10 Iyyappan, P.W.12 Shanmugam, P.W.13 Murugesan and P.W.14 Jeganathan would establish that accused Manickam having entered into the house of the deceased Vijaya at 2.00 a.m., came out of her house at 2.15 a.m. and then proceeded to his village. 12. The arrest of accused Manickam and recovery of material objects at his instance were established by P.W.18 V.A.O. Murugan. Exhibit P-30 Serology Report would establish that the deceased Vijaya had B' group blood. The apparels and the knife recovered at the instance of accused Manickam and the apparels recovered from the dead body of the deceased Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan were detected with human blood of 'B' group. No plausible explanation could be given by accused Manickam as to how the human blood of 'B' group was found in his apparels. The prosecution would also establish that M.O.14 Knife recovered from accused Manickam also contained human blood of 'B' group. Exhibit P-27 Serology Report provides a very strong clue about the involvement of accused Manickam in the double murder. 13. To seal the fate of accused Manickam, P.W.26 Inspector Selvam, Investigating Officer in this case, lifted the Finger Print of accused Manickam and the same was sent through the Court for comparison along with the Finger Print found on M.O.10 Blood stained TVS 50 XL Owner's Manual Book. P.W.20 Felix Stephen, Finger Print Expert, has categorically given an opinion in Exhibit P-18 Report, dated 28.1.2008, that the Finger Print of accused Manickam did tally with the Finger Print found in M.O.10 Blood stained TVS 50 XL Owner's Manual Book. No plausible explanation is coming out from accused Manickam to explain as to how his Blood stained Finger Print could be found on M.O.10, which was recovered from the bureau on the fateful day in the house of the deceased Vijaya. 14. P.W.15 Dr. Sakthivel having found lethal injuries on the neck of both the deceased has categorically opined, in Exhibits P4 and P7 Post-mortem Certificates, that both the deceased would appear to have expired 12-16 hrs. prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. With the above referred to chain of circumstances, the prosecution could establish that it was only accused Manickam who perpetrated the double murder of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan. 15. prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. With the above referred to chain of circumstances, the prosecution could establish that it was only accused Manickam who perpetrated the double murder of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the statements of P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.12 Shanmugam and P.W.14 Jeganathan recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.2.2007 reached the Court only on 21.6.2007 as per the evidence of P.W.24 Eswaramurthy, Head Clerk, attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of those witnesses. 16. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that accused Manickam was arrested as early as on 20.2.2007 itself. Therefore, there could be no occasion for fabricating a case falsely as against accused Manickam. The mere delay in despatching the statements recorded from those witnesses would not derail the entire case of the prosecution. 17. It is true that P.W.7 Sakthivel, P.W.8 Gopi, P.W.12 Shanmugam and P.W.14 Jeganathan had been examined by the Investigating Officer on 20.2.2007 and their statements reached the Court only on 21.6.2007. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accused Manickam was arrested on 20.2.2007 itself. Therefore, the delay, if any, in despatching the statements recorded from those witnesses would not create a dent in the case of the prosecution. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that P.W.7 Sakthivel and P.W.8 Gopi had not disclosed the fact that they saw accused Manickam at the odd hours to anyone before confided to the Investigating Officer on 20.2.2007. P.W.7 Sakthivel is found to be a driver by profession. It is his evidence that he had left the house at 5.00a.m. itself on 19.2.2007 to board the lorry and he came down only on 20.2.2007 and informed the Investigating Officer. P.W.8 Gopi would state that out of fear he did not disclose the fact that he spotted accused Manickam at odd hours to anyone till 20.2.2007 when he was examined by the Investigating Officer. 19. The evidence of P.W.1 Madheswari and P.W.9 Baby would go to establish that accused Manlckam had an illicit relationship with the deceased Vijaya. P.W.8 Gopi would state that out of fear he did not disclose the fact that he spotted accused Manickam at odd hours to anyone till 20.2.2007 when he was examined by the Investigating Officer. 19. The evidence of P.W.1 Madheswari and P.W.9 Baby would go to establish that accused Manlckam had an illicit relationship with the deceased Vijaya. It is not as if P.W.7 Sakthivel and P.W.8 Gopi saw accused Manickam actually committing the murder of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan. They just saw accused Manickam entering into the house at 2.00 a.m. and coming out of the house at 2.15 a.m. respectively. There is no reason for them to speak falsehood as regards the involvement of accused Manickam in the crime of murder of Vijaya and Guna @ Kathiravan. When the Investigating Officer examined them on 20.2.2007, they came out with the information that they also saw accused Manickam at 2.00 a.m. when he was entering into the house and at 2.15 a.m. when he was coming out of the house respectively. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the testimonies of P.W.7 Sakthivel and P.W.8 Gopi on the ground that they burked the information for more than one day. 20. P.W.11 Regupathy has turned completely hostile to the version of the prosecution. Therefore, it is totally unsafe to rely upon any part of his evidence. 21. It is true that P.W.10 Iyyappan did not specify the date on which he saw accused Manickam, but, if we go through the entire evidence of P.W.10 Iyyappan, we can easily come to a decision that he refers to only the date of occurrence. Of course, P.W.10 Iyyappan would state that P.W.11 Regupathy and himself went by TVS 50, whereas, P.W.11 Regupathy would state that P.W.10 Iyyappan and himself went by YAMAHA vehicle. As already pointed out by this Court, the evidence of P.W.11 Regupathy cannot be relied upon to support the defence version as he had completely turned hostile. Further, the discrepancy as to the vehicle in which P.W.10 lyyappan and P.W.11 Regupathy travelled at the relevant time does not matter much. 22. P.W.12 Shanmugam would state that on 19.2.2007 he was examined by the Investigating Officer and at that time, he found accused Manickam hand-cuffed. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam, Investigating Officer, would state that P.W.12 Shanmugam was examined only on 20.2.2007. 22. P.W.12 Shanmugam would state that on 19.2.2007 he was examined by the Investigating Officer and at that time, he found accused Manickam hand-cuffed. P.W.26 Inspector Selvam, Investigating Officer, would state that P.W.12 Shanmugam was examined only on 20.2.2007. Of course, the statement of P.W.12 Shanmugam has reached the Court only on 21.6.2007. The records would establish that P.W.12 Shanmugam was examined only on 20.2.2007 and not on 19.2.2007 as deposed by P.W.12 Shanmugam. On 20.2.2007, accused Manickam was arrested. No wonder, P.W.12 Shanmugam has chosen to state that accused Manickam was found hand-cuffed on the date when he was examined by the Investigating Officer. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.13 Murugesan, who used to repair the police vehicles, cannot be relied upon as he was an obliging witness. The testimony of P.W.14 Jeganathan cannot be safely relied upon as he had allegedly opened the shop at 3.30 a.m. against the instructions of the police personnel, it is further contended. 24. Just because P.W.13 Murugesan used to repair the vehicles of the police personnel, we cannot reject his testimony. It is not as if P.W.13 Murugesan was planted to speak about the ocular version of murder. He had just spotted accused Manickam at about 3.00 a.m. when he was in the workshop. As his evidence is found to be natural, it cannot be rejected. 25. P.W.14 Jeganathan of course would state that there was an instruction by the police personnel that the shop keepers should not keep open the shops between 11.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. Quite probably, that was the reason why the other shops were closed and his shop was opened, of course, against the instruction of Bavani police. The opening of the shop by P.W.14 Jeganathan may incur the wrath of the police personnel, but his evidence that accused Manickam came to his shop to purchase cigarettes at 3.30 a.m. cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he violated the instruction floated from the police personnel. 26. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1 Madheswari at 9.00 a.m. and Exhibit P-33 Express First Information Report reached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, on the very same day at 3.10 p.m. Firstly, it is found that the First Information Report does not implicate accused Manickam. 26. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1 Madheswari at 9.00 a.m. and Exhibit P-33 Express First Information Report reached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, on the very same day at 3.10 p.m. Firstly, it is found that the First Information Report does not implicate accused Manickam. If the delay had given rise to fabrication of a story of murder in the FIR and consequent implication of accused Manickam, then in that case, the delay of six hours for First Information Report to reach the Court will have to be necessarily explained by the prosecuting agency. But, the appellant was not at all shown as an accused in First Information Report. Therefore, such a delay does not tilt the case of the prosecution. 27. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that P.W.4 Vasanthi and P.W.5 Arumugham have spotted accused Manickam when they were examined on 19.2.2007. Firstly, P.W.4 Vasanthi would state that one Manickam also was present at the time when he was examined. He did not specifically state that the said Manickam was the accused. P.W.5 Arumugham would state that the accused was present. He did not specifically refer to the accused Manickam. Further, it is found that accused Manickam was arrested on 20.2.2007 itself. As accused Manickam was arrested on the next day itself, quite probably P.W.4 Vasanthi and P.W.5 Arumugham would have come out with a version that they, in fact, spotted accused Manickam on the day when they were examined, unmindful of the arrest of accused Manickam only on 20.2.2007. There is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.18 V.A.O. Murugan with regard to the arrest of accused Manickam, confession statement recorded from him and the recovery of M.O.12 Full-hand shirt; M.O.13 Trousers and M.O.14 Knife at his instance. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the version of accused Manickam that he was all along present in the scene of occurrence from 8.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007 and continued to assist the Investigating Officer. 28. It is submitted that there was an insertion in Form 95 to include M.O.11 National Insurance Company Policy thereunder. We find that Exhibit P-12 seizure mahazar, which speaks about the seizure of M.O.11 National Insurance Company Policy, reached the Court on 20.2.2007 itself. 28. It is submitted that there was an insertion in Form 95 to include M.O.11 National Insurance Company Policy thereunder. We find that Exhibit P-12 seizure mahazar, which speaks about the seizure of M.O.11 National Insurance Company Policy, reached the Court on 20.2.2007 itself. Therefore, there could have been no occasion for introduction of M.O.11 National Insurance Company Policy in form 95 by way of insertion. 29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no one spoke about spotting accused Manickam along with the deceased Vijaya just prior to the occurrence. P.W.1 Madheswari was categorical that both the deceased proceeded to their house at 9.30 p.m. on 18.2.2007. P.W.7 Sakthivel has seen accused Manickam entering into the house at 2.00 a.m. on 19.2.2007. P.W.8 Gopi has witnessed accused Manickam coming out of the house about 15 minutes thereafter. The above testimony of those witnesses and the other facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, would go to show that accused Manickam gained access to the house of the deceased Vijaya when they were in their house. Of course, the complaint lodged by P.W.1 Madheswari speaks about the removal of certain tiles in the chimney portion of the house. Of course, the Investigating Officer should have directed his investigation towards that aspect also. When clinching materials are there to establish that it was only the accused Manickam, who perpetrated the crime of double murder, the above lapses on the part of the Investigating Agency do not go to the root of the case. 30. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Investigating Officer has no authority to lift the Finger Print of accused Manickam after he was arrested and therefore, the Reports submitted by P.W.20 Felix Stephen cannot be relied upon as one of the circumstances. 31. Section 2(a) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') defines "measurement" to include finger impressions and foot print impressions. Section 4 of the said Act would read that any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the manner prescribed. Section 4 of the said Act would read that any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the manner prescribed. Under Section 5 of the said Act, if a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation, it is necessary to direct any person to allow his finger impression to be taken, he may make an order directing the person concerned to be produced and allow his Finger Print to be taken by a police officer. 32. As the provisions under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, do not contemplate any prescription for taking the signature or hand-writing of any person including an accused person, the Legislature thought it fit to introduce a new provision under Section 311-A CrPC as per the Amendment Act, 2005, in the aftermath of observations made by the Supreme Court in relation thereto in AIR 1980 SC 791 : (1980) SCC (Cr) 444 : (1980) 1 MLJ (Crl) 477. In the instant case, as the Finger Print was shaken from accused Manickam, the provision under Section 311-A Cr.P.C., 1973, would have no application. The provision under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, alone would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 33. The Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2960 : (1997) SCC (Cr) 777 : (1997) 10 SCC 44 observed as follows: "Apart from the above missing link and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the same, there is another circumstance which also casts a serious mistrust as to genuineness of the evidence. Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate; The other related infirmity from which the prosecution case suffers is that the brass jug; production of which would have been the best evidence in proof of the claim of its seizure and subsequent examination by the Bureau, was not produced and exhibited during trial - for reasons best known to the prosecution and unknown to the Court. For the foregoing discussion we are unable to sustain the convictions of Mohd. Aman." The Supreme Court do recognise the competency of the police officer to lift the Finger Print of the accused under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. It has been observed there in that it is desirable to invoke the provision under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, seeking orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate with a view to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fide. 34. There is no law which prohibits the Investigating Officer from lifting the Finger Print of the accused for comparison during the course of investigation of the case. In fact, the provisions found under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, and Section 311-A Cr.P.C speak only about the powers of the learned Judicial Magistrate, when he is approached by the Investigating Officer concerned for a suitable direction to the accused to co-operate by giving his finger print or signature or sample hand-writing as the case may be. It is to be noted that those provisions do not put an embargo on the Investigating Officers from acting on their own for lifting the finger print, signature or hand-writing of the accused during the course of investigation. It is to be noted that those provisions do not put an embargo on the Investigating Officers from acting on their own for lifting the finger print, signature or hand-writing of the accused during the course of investigation. The Supreme Court has not laid down that the Investigating Officer should mandatorily invoke the provision under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, whenever he resorts to lift the finger print of the accused for the purpose of investigation of the case. 35. A few years prior to the aforesaid verdict of the Supreme Court, a Bench of this Court in Ravanan v. State (Inspector of Police), Kumbakonam and Another 1994-1- L.W. (CRL.) 58 observed, referring to its earlier judgment passed in Shanmughayya and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1986, dated 7.2.1992), that the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, does not stipulate that Section 5 straightaway refers to the prescription contemplated under Section 4 of the said Act. It has been further held that the power of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act does not seem to affect the power of a police officer, to take finger prints or photographs of the persons arrested in connection with the crime. While holding so, it chose to reject the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that invariably during the course of investigation a person arrested must be taken before a Magistrate and orders must be obtained before ever the finger print of such persons could be taken by a Police Officer. It has been categorically held therein that Sections 4 and 5 operate in different fields and obviously if the State Government had made any Rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, the Investigating Officer, ought to have followed such Rules which would fall within the ambit of 'Prescribed manner' contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. 36. The Bench of this Court has already taken a view that the Police Officer need not always resort to Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, when he intends to lift the sample Finger Print of the accused as he has been empowered to act independently under Section 4 of the said Act. 36. The Bench of this Court has already taken a view that the Police Officer need not always resort to Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, when he intends to lift the sample Finger Print of the accused as he has been empowered to act independently under Section 4 of the said Act. The implication is that whenever an accused does not co-operate, the powers of the Magistrate contemplated under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, will have to be resorted to by the Police Officer, so that, he will be empowered, if resistance is put up by the accused, to take all lawful means necessary to secure the finger print or thumb impression of the accused invoking the provision under Section 6 of the said Act. 37. In (2003) 1 MLJ (Crl) 217 (Mad) : (2003) (1) CTC 223 the learned single Judge of this Court while deciding the question whether an accused can be convicted based on the sole opinion evidence of the Expert, observed, following the dictum laid down in Mohd. Aman And Another v. State of Rajasthan (supra) case by the Supreme Court, that in order to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence, desirable course contemplated in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court to resort to the provision under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, was not resorted to. 38. That was a case where the trial Court recorded conviction based only on the opinion evidence of the Expert. There was no corroboration by any direct evidence or by any other circumstantial evidence. In such circumstances, addressing the question whether it would be safe to rely upon such a sole testimony of the Expert, the Court answered that the Investigating Officer should have resorted to the provision under Section 5 of the Act to get permission from the Magistrate in order to attach more sanctity and credibility teethe process of lifting sample signature by the police officer. Based on the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court, we cannot jump to a conclusion that the Police Officer should totally ignore the provision prescribed under Section 4 of the Act and should resort only to the provision prescribed under Section 5 of the Act seeking permission to lift the finger print from the accused during the course of investigation. It is to be remembered that in this case, the finger print Expert's opinion is only one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence and not the sole evidence available to be banked on by the prosecuting agency. 39. The Bench of this Court in (2003) 1 L.W. (Crl) 413 held that in the absence of any Rule framed under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, with respect to the manner of taking finger print as spelt out under Section 4 of the Act, Section 5 of the Act would be attracted and the police officer shall necessarily approach the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking appropriate direction to the accused to give his finger print. 40. The Bench, while disposing of the aforesaid case, under the impression that no Rule was framed under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, expressed the view that it was desirable for the State Government to frame appropriate Rules under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, giving clear cut guidelines and procedures indicating the prescribed manner as provided under Section 4 of the Act for taking the finger print of the accused in custody. 41. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of G.O. (Ms) No. 1668, Home (Prison-I) Department, dated 13.11.2007. The Government passed the said G.O. observing therein that the Government had already framed Rules invoking the power under Section 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, in the year 1920 itself. But, considering the major developments that has taken place in the scientific arena in identification of criminals, a full revised Rule styled as Tamil Nadu Identification of Prisoners Rules, 2007' was passed. As per Rule 4(m) of the said Rules, a Finger Print Expert or a Police Officer of the rank of a police constable or above has been authorised to take Finger impressions. Of course the said Revised Rule will not apply to the present case, as occurrence had taken place a few months prior the enactment and enforcement of the Revised Rule. 42. Of course the said Revised Rule will not apply to the present case, as occurrence had taken place a few months prior the enactment and enforcement of the Revised Rule. 42. It is relevant at this stage to refer to the decision of he Supreme Court in (1995) Cri.L.J. 2080, wherein it has been observed that the finding of the High Court that the bogus nature of the muster rolls has not been established since the police officers who took finger prints were not covered by Section2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, is erroneous. Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act defines "police officer" as an officer in charge of a police-station; a police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989; or any other police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. "Officer in charge of a police station" under Section 2(o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is defined as an "Officer in charge of a police station" including the Station House Officer. The police officers, who took the finger prints, were Head Constables. The taking of finger prints is an act which is of ministerial in nature. The accused persons have admitted their finger prints. The validity of taking finger print by the police constable was not challenged before the trial Court. In view of the above, the Supreme Court has observed that the reliance by the High Court on Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, is erroneous. In the instant case, the appellant has admitted that his thumb impression was obtained on blank sheets by the Investigating Officer. The validity of the Investigating Officer to lift the finger print from the accused was not challenged by the accused during the course of trial of the case. Therefore, no occasion had arisen for the Investigating Official to establish that powers conferred on him even under the Police Standing Orders of the State. Following the aforesaid ratio rendered by the Supreme Court, we find that there is no infirmity in the act of the Investigating Officer taking sample finger print from the accused for the purpose of investigation of this case. 43. We find that all the links in the chain of circumstances are found complete. Following the aforesaid ratio rendered by the Supreme Court, we find that there is no infirmity in the act of the Investigating Officer taking sample finger print from the accused for the purpose of investigation of this case. 43. We find that all the links in the chain of circumstances are found complete. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt with the above referred chain of circumstances that it was only the accused who committed double murder. 44. We find that the trial Court has rightly passed a verdict of conviction as against accused Manickam for double murder and sentenced him there under. There is no warrant for interference with the well merited judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC (2/Counts) and the sentence imposed there under by the trial Court are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.