Judgment :- Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.8 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.341, 324 (2 counts) and 302 (2 counts) of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 of IPC (2 counts), one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.324 of IPC (2 counts) and one month Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.341 of IPC, and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is a native of Poonthottam within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. On 21.10.2006, he went to his uncles house, and at about 7.00 P.M. he took Gunachithra, the first deceased (D1) along with her 1 ½ year old child to the nearby temple, and when they were coming back, the appellant/accused intercepted and demanded the hand-loan money. At that time he also dragged her hand and outraged her modesty, and she pushed him down. It was actually witnessed by Pws.1 to 3. At that time, immediately the accused got into the house, took M.O.1, aruval, and cut her on different parts of the body. On seeing this, the second deceased (D2) Lalitha, the mother of D1, intervened. Immediately he attacked her indiscriminately. In that process, P.W.1 also intervened to save them, but he also sustained injuries. The child also sustained injuries in that transaction. Then he fled away from the place of occurrence when the neighbours gathered, along with the weapon of crime. They found both D1 and D2 dead. (b) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where he gave Ex.P22, the complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by the Sub Inspector of Police one Veeramuthu in Crime No.117 of 2006 under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P21 was despatched to the Court. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P24, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P23. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar. (c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P24, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P23. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth in the presence of witnesses under a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Gunachithra D1 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P25. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of Lalitha D2 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P26. Thereafter, both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. (d) P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Jeyankondam, on receipt of the requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gunachithra and has given his opinion in Ex.P14, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ namely brain. (e) The same Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lalitha and gave his opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P15, that she died out of shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organ namely brain. (f) P.W.1 was examined by the same Doctor, and he has given the accident register copy, Ex.P16. The child was given treatment by P.W.14, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, and he gave the accident register copy, Ex.P19. (g) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 22.10.2006, and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P27, following which he produced bloodstained shirt and also an aruval marked as Exs.P11 and P1 respectively. They were recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the material objects produced by the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, were sent for analysis which brought forth Ex.P31, the chemical analysts report, and Ex.P32, the serologists report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 35 exhibits and 12 material objects. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 35 exhibits and 12 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of all the charges and hence found him guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr.P.Tamilavel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came with the story that the occurrence has taken place at about 7.45 P.M. on 21.10.2006; that P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined as eyewitnesses; that it was P.W.1, according to the prosecution case, who gave Ex.P22 report; but, P.W.1 has turned hostile; and that under the circumstances, not only his evidence, but also Ex.P22 could not be acted upon. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 relied upon by the prosecution was concerned, the same should have been subjected to careful scrutiny since they were closely related to each other, and there were discrepancies on the material particulars; that according to P.W.2, it was P.W.3 who accompanied him at the time of the occurrence; that according to P.W.3, only after hearing the distressing cry, he came out of the house and thus it would be quite clear that they could not have seen the occurrence at all. 6. 6. It is further added by the learned Counsel that according to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 22.10.2006 and following the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, and also bloodstained shirt; that in this regard the prosecution examined two witnesses namely P.Ws.7 and 8, out of whom P.W.8 turned hostile; that as far as P.W.7 was concerned, he has categorically admitted that he signed all the mahazars only in the police station; that this would be indicative of the fact that the alleged recovery pursuant to the confessional statement cannot but be false, and that evidence was also not available to the prosecution. 7. Added further the learned Counsel that the material objects were placed for analysis; that the serologists report would clearly indicate that the blood group was not conclusive; and that under the circumstances, the scientific evidence was not available to the prosecution. 8. The learned Counsel would further urge that as far as the motive is concerned, a blank stamp paper has been recovered from the accused bearing the signature of D1; that if it was true, it is for the prosecution to explain the motive; but, the prosecution has miserably failed in that regard; that in the instant case, the prosecution had no evidence to offer before the trial Court; that even then the trial Court has taken an erroneous view finding him guilty and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside. 9. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 10. It is not in controversy that one Gunachithra and her mother Lalitha who were D1 and D2 respectively, were done to death following an occurrence that had taken place at about 7.45 P.M. on 21.10.2006. The prosecution in order to prove that they met homicidal death, has examined P.W.11, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem apart from relying on the postmortem certificates issued by him wherein it is found that they died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained, and the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Thus the cause of death as put forth by the prosecution that they died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court and here also. Thus the cause of death as put forth by the prosecution that they died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court and here also. Hence the trial Court was perfectly correct in recording so. 11. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant/accused that it was he who attacked both the deceased namely Gunachithra D1 and Lalitha D2 and caused the death instantaneously, the prosecution marched three witnesses as occurrence witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the uncles son of Gunachithra D1, and P.W.2 is the husband of Lalitha D2, while P.W.3 is the son of D2. Out of these three witnesses, P.W.1 who gave the information to the police, has turned hostile. But, at the same time, he has admitted his signature in Ex.P22. It is true that the prosecution could not rest its case on the evidence of P.W.1 since he has turned hostile. However his evidence was available to the extent that he put the criminal law in motion. The prosecution to that extent has availed his evidence. 12. As far as P.Ws.2 and 3 are concerned, they were eyewitnesses. They have categorically spoken to the fact that their house is situated nearby; that after hearing the distressing cry, they came outside and found the appellant/accused cutting the deceased; that when they were making attempt, they were also threatened; and that the child in that process was also injured. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court that there were discrepancies, in the considered opinion of the Court, those discrepancies are minor most which are bound to occur in the human memory. That apart, the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through P.Ws.2 and 3 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence projected through the evidence of P.W.11, the postmortem Doctor, and his opinion canvassed before the Court. Hence it can be well stated that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 were cogent, natural and stood the careful scrutiny test, and also corroborated by the medical evidence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant/accused. 13. Hence it can be well stated that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 were cogent, natural and stood the careful scrutiny test, and also corroborated by the medical evidence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant/accused. 13. Now, as regards the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant as to the alleged recovery of the material objects from him following the confessional statement, this Court has to necessarily agree with him. Out of the two witnesses examined by the prosecution in that regard namely P.Ws.7 and 8, P.W.8 has turned hostile. As far as P.W.7 is concerned, he has categorically admitted that the mahazars pertaining to the recovery of the material objects, were actually signed at the police station. Hence the claim of the Investigator that he was arrested outside and he gave a confessional statement pursuant to which he produced the bloodstained shirt and the weapon of crime cannot be accepted. 14. As far as the motive part is concerned, there was a demand made in the public road when the lady was going with her uncles son P.W.1, and at that juncture, there was a quarrel, and he dragged her hand in the public road outraging her modesty. She immediately pushed him down, and then he got into the house, took an aruval and attacked her. The provocation which he got at that time was self made. It remains to be stated that he has also outraged the modesty of the lady in the public place. Apart from that, a blank stamp paper bearing the signature of D1 at the end, was recovered from him and produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Under the circumstances, it is for the accused to explain how he came into the custody of the said blank stamp paper signed by D1. In a given case where a particular fact is missing and it is well within the knowledge of the accused, it is for him to explain that fact. If he gives a false explanation or suppresses the said fact, it would be only against him, and the Court can well infer that it is a circumstance against him. In a given case where a particular fact is missing and it is well within the knowledge of the accused, it is for him to explain that fact. If he gives a false explanation or suppresses the said fact, it would be only against him, and the Court can well infer that it is a circumstance against him. In the case on hand, the prosecution had, in the considered opinion of the Court, sufficient evidence by which it has brought home the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance by the Court. The trial Court was perfectly correct in finding him guilty under the above provisions of law and awarding the sentence. This Court finds nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court. 15. In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.