Judgment : M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1 Challenge is made to judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. I, Thanjavur, made in S.C. No. 277 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 307 and 302 (2 counts) of IPC, tried, found guilty under Section 302 (2 counts) of IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of ` 2000/- and default ‘sentence for each count, though he was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of IPC, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2 Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts for the disposal of the prosecution case can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the son of one Valarmathy, the second deceased (D2) and also the brother of one Ramya, the first deceased (D1). P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the elder brother of the accused. The accused has another brother by name Paulraj. The accused and P.W.3 had no parents. P.W.3 was not married. He was carrying on lorry business. He used to go and stay in the house of P.W.1 and used to have food. P.Ws.1 and 2 were carrying on the mason work. The accused/appellant had all along the grievance that P.W.3 has been spending all the earnings from the lorry business for the family of P.W.1 and also both the deceased. (b) On31.7.2005, P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.1 at about 7.00 p.m., in order to take him the next morning for mason work. P.W.2 stayed in that house. P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping in the hall, while D1 Ramya and D2 Valarmathy and P.W.3 were sleeping in the veranda. At about 12.00 a.m. night, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard the sound of a quarrel and then they found P.W.3 and the accused were quarrelling. In that quarrel, the accused took an aruval which was hidden by him, and attacked P.W.3. D1 and D2 and also P.Ws.1 and 2 have witnessed the same. Immediately, when D1 and D2 raised alarm and were running, the accused uttering “ you are responsible for the same ” , chased them, and when D1 Ramya fell down, he attacked her on different parts of the body, and while D2 Valarmathy her mother, raised a distressing cry, she was also attacked by him, and thus he caused their death. Both D1 and D2 died at the spot. Both D1 and D2 died at the spot. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the entire occurrence apart from P.W.3 who sustained injuries in the transaction. (c) P.W.3 was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, in a van. He was examined by P.W.14, the Doctor, who after examining him, gave him medical treatment, and the copy of the accident register in this regard is marked as Exhibit P-11. (d) On 1.8.2005 at about 4 ‘ O Clock, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, was in the respondent police station, and at that time, P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.2, appeared before him and gave a complaint, Exhibit P-1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 229 of 2005 under Sections 307 and 302 (2 counts) of IPC. The printed FIR, Exhibit P-17, was despatched to the Court which was taken by a Constable. (e) P.W.19 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Exhibit P-2, and also a rough sketch, Exhibit P-18. He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on both the dead bodies of Ramya and Valarmathy in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Exhibits P-20 and P-21, the inquest reports, respectively. The Photographer was called. P.W.13, the Photographer, took the photographs of the dead bodies and also the place of occurrence. M.O.9 series, are the photos, and M.O.10 series are its negatives. Both the. dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. (f) On receipt of the requisitions, both the dead bodies were subjected, to autopsy by P.W.15, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Thiruvidaimaruthur, who gave the postmortem certificates, Exhibits P-12 and P-22, respectively. The Doctor has opined that the deceased Ramya would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to major vessels (neck) 10 to 16 hours prior to postmortem, and the deceased Valarmathy would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage due to injury to major vessels of the neck and injury to the trachea, 10 to 14 hours prior to postmortem. (g) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily. The admissible part is marked as Exhibit P-7. Consequent upon the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Exhibit P-8. (g) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily. The admissible part is marked as Exhibit P-7. Consequent upon the same, he produced M.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Exhibit P-8. He was sent for judicial remand. A requisition was forwarded to the Forensic Sciences Department through the concerned Court for analysis of all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead bodies and M.O.1, aruval, the weapon of crime. Accordingly, they were subjected to as a result of which Exhibit P-16, the chemical analyst’s report, was received. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3 The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 19 witnesses and also relied on 24 exhibits and 12 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 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 on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the charge of murder (two counts) and hence found them guilty and awarded the above punishment, though it recorded an order of acquittal of the charge under Section 307 of IPC. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant before this Court. 4 Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Mr. M. Karunanithi in his sincere attempt of assailing the judgment, would submit that in the instant case, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place in the night hours i.e., 1.00 a.m., on 1.8.2005; that three witnesses were examined as eyewitnesses out of whom P.W.3 though shown as an eyewitness, was an injured witness; but P.W.3 has turned hostile, and hence the evidence of P.W.3 was not useful to the prosecution. 5 Attacking the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned counsel would submit that they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that P.W.2 was a person belonging to a different village; that according to him, he came to the house of P.W.1 in order to take him for the mason work in the next morning and stayed in the house of P.W.1 that night; but when he was examined by the Investigator and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, he has not stated so; and that under the circumstances, it is highly doubtful whether P.W.2 could have been in the place of occurrence at all. 6 Pointing to Exhibit P-11, the accident register copy in respect of P.W.3, issued by P.W.14, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, the learned counsel would urge that the “ earliest document in the case records is Exhibit P-11; that a perusal of the same would clearly indicate that it was actually recorded at about 2.25 a.m. wherein it is mentioned originally as 3 persons, and it has been scored out and made as 1 person; that even the Investigator has categorically stated that it was found so; that at the time of the cross-examination of P.W.14, the Doctor, it has been elicited that it has been originally written as 3 persons and scored out and made as 1 person; that if to be so, a duty was cast upon the. prosecution to elicit in the re-examination clarifying the same; but it has not been done so and that it would naturally cast a doubt whether originally three persons were shown or whether they, were not known. prosecution to elicit in the re-examination clarifying the same; but it has not been done so and that it would naturally cast a doubt whether originally three persons were shown or whether they, were not known. 7 The learned counsel would further add that it is also highly doubtful whether Exhibit P-1 has come into existence as put forth by the prosecution; that P.W.1 has categorically stated that when he went to the police station, he took his brother-in-law one Jayakumar, and he has also signed Exhibit P-1, the report, as an attesting witness; that a perusal of Exhibit P-1 does not indicate that it was attested by anybody; but at the place where he has actually signed therein, ’X’ mark is also shown, and thereafter only, he should have signed; that it would also indicate that he should have signed in a blank paper, and it should have been later filled up; and that it is also highly doubtful whether Exhibit P-1 could have come into existence as put forth by P.W.1 or the prosecution. 8 Added further the learned counsel that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that according to P.Ws.1 and 2, immediately after the occurrence, because of the grip of fear, they have immediately rushed to the house of one Saravnan, which is situated in the backyard; but, it was not found in the rough sketch; and that it would indicate that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all. 9 The learned counsel would further add that P.W.1 has categorically admitted that when he went in the night hours, the accused was actually found in the police station, and he has been enquired; that if to be so, the claim of the Investigator that he was arrested on the evening hours when he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and M.O.1 has actually been recovered from him cannot but be false and hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by the evidence adduced before the trial Court. 10 Added further the learned counsel in the second line of argument that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that it was the accused who attacked both the deceased at the time of the occurrence, his act would not attract the penal provision of murder; that the only grievance of the appellant/accused in the past was that P.W.3 has been spending the entire income to the family of the deceased and they were enjoying the benefit of the same; that it was a lorry business belonging to the joint family which fact is also spoken to by P.W.19, the Inspector of Police; that if to be so, he was actually provoked; that the same was lingering in his mind; that in view of the sustained provocation, he has acted so; that under the circumstances, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder; that it is neither premeditated nor intentional, and this has got to be considered by this Court. 11 The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 12 It is not in controversy that one Ramya, Dl, and her mother, Valarmathy, D2, were killed in an incident that had taken place on the night hours of 1.8.2005. Following the registration of the case, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection. After the preparation of the inquest reports, Exhibits P-20 and P-21 respectively, the dead bodies were sent for the purpose of postmortem, to the Government Hospital, Thiruvidaimaruthur. P.W.15, the Doctor, attached to the said Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on both the dead bodies and has given his opinion in the postmortem certificates, Exhibits P-12 and P-22 respectively, that both the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained on the vital organs. 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 or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt in recording so. 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 or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt in recording so. 13 In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant that it was he who attacked D1, Ramya, and D2, Valarmathy, with the aruval and caused their death instantaneously and also attempted at the life of P.W.3, the prosecution marched three witness namely P.Ws.1 to 3. Unfortunately, P.W.3, who sustained grievous injuries and on whose life the accused attempted, has turned hostile, and hence the trial Judge has made an order of acquittal of the accused in respect of the charge attempt to murder. 14 As far as the other charge of murder (two counts) is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as eyewitnesses and also the other circumstances. P.W.1 is the brother of D1 Ramya and son of D2 Valarmathy. According to P.W.1, he was actually residing in the very same house. The fact that he was residing in the same house, and was staying during that night in that house where both -D1 and D2 were also sleeping, and was sleeping was not a fact disputed. Hence it is quite clear that he was actually sleeping with his mother and sister in the very same house in which the occurrence has taken place. According to P.W.2, P.W.1 and himself were actually masons by profession, and he came to the house of P.W.1 on that day at 7.00 p.m. in order to take P.W.1 in the morning hours for mason work, and thus he was staying there. This fact is also spoken to by P.W.1. The learned counsel made ’a comment that it is actually not spoken to by any one of the witnesses in the statement, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, was of no avail for the simple reason that this fact is very well averred in the earliest complaint, Exhibit P-1, itself. Thus P.Ws.1 and 2 were actually in the house where the occurrence has taken place on the night hours of 1.8.2005. Thus P.Ws.1 and 2 were actually in the house where the occurrence has taken place on the night hours of 1.8.2005. 15 According to P.Ws.1 and 2, when they were actually sleeping along with D1 and D2, they heard the cry from the upstairs, and they went and found the appellant/accused attacking P.W.3, and at that time, D1 and D2 were actually standing in the staircase and witnessing the appellant/accused cutting his brother, P.W.3, and when the accused noticed both D1 and D2, he uttered the words “ you are responsible for all these things ” . According to the prosecution, the motive for the accused to commit the crime was that actually the entire income from the lorry business was spent by P.W.3 on the family members of D1 and D2, and it has impelled him to speak the words “ you are responsible for this ” , and when both D1 and D2 were running to escape, he chased them, and when D1 Ramya fell down, he delivered cuts on different parts of her body and not satisfied with the cuts given to D1, he also cut her mother, D2 Valarmathy, which has caused their instantaneous death at the spot. The postmortem certificates when looked into, would clearly indicate that the injuries were actually caused on the neck, and the Doctor has pointed out that the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the vital organs (neck). Thus the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 16 Now the learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court certain facts which are narrated above. The first comment made by the learned counsel was in respect of an entry made in Exhibit P11, the accident register copy in respect of P.W.3, issued by P.W.14, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. It is not in controversy that actually the document has come into existence at about 2.25 a.m. It is also an admitted position that in the said document, Exhibit P11, originally it was written as 3 persons, and it was scored out and corrected as 1 person. It is also true that at the time of cross-examination, the Doctor has candidly admitted that a correction has been made. But no further cross was made. It is also true that at the time of cross-examination, the Doctor has candidly admitted that a correction has been made. But no further cross was made. The learned counsel commenting on the prosecution, would submit that at that juncture, re-examination was called for. But this Court is of the opinion that while the Doctor has categorically spoken in the chief-examination that the fact that, one person has actually attacked him was entered, and it was also spoken to by the person concerned, and entry is made, and now there is a correction as 1 person in the place of 3 persons, the cross-examination of the Doctor should have been done whether the person who gave the information, has given incorrect information, but such a cross-examination was not at all made. Finding it risky to further probe into the matter, the cross-examination was stopped at that stage. Under the circumstances, no question of further re-examination would arise in the case on hand. While the Doctor has categorically stated that when he was brought to the hospital it, was he who has stated so that he was attacked by only one. So long as the cross-examination was not made as far as that act is concerned, the Court has to agree with the Doctor’s evidence that was only by one person. Apart from that, though P.W.3 has turned hostile at the time of chief-examination, he has categorically stated that he was actually attacked by only one person, but when he was telling that he was attacked by an unknown person, there was an occasion for the prosecution to treat him hostile. Under the circumstances, it could be relied to the extent that he was attacked by one person only. It is not a case where the prosecution relied upon Exhibit P-11 document only. The prosecution had direct evidence in the instant case who have witnessed the occurrence and they were marched as P.Ws.1 and 2. So long as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 inspires the confidence of the Court and could be relied upon, much reliance need not be placed on the contents of Exhibit P-11. Now the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has got to be accepted and it stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence this Court is satisfied that it was the appellant/accused who caused the death of both D1 and D2. Now the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has got to be accepted and it stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence this Court is satisfied that it was the appellant/accused who caused the death of both D1 and D2. 17 As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.1 aruval cannot be accepted for the simple reason that P.W.1 has given evidence that the accused was in the police station, and he was enquired by the Investigator in the morning hours. If to be so, the claim of the Investigator that he was arrested in the evening hours, and he gave a confessional statement, and the weapon of crime, M.O.1 aruval, was recovered cannot be accepted. Though this part of the evidence as to the arrest, confession and recovery is not be believed by the Court, even then, the prosecution has suffice evidence through P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the medical evidence. Thus this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused. 18 The learned counsel for the appellant has made a comment that Exhibit P-1 document could not have come into existence and P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all. This Court has to take a contra view from the contention put forth by the learned counsel. Insofar as Exhibit P-1, the original is verified by the Court. It is a written one, and it runs to two full pages, and P.W.1 has signed at the end. Therefore, as regards the contention that ’X’ mark is found therein, even there is no page available, and therefore the person who recorded the same, has made an endorsement on the horizontal way as found in Exhibit P-1. Hence it leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court. 19 As regards the second line of argument, this Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel. Even as per the evidence of the Investigator, the entire income from the lorry business though jointly owned by the family, was spent by P.W.3 on the family members of the deceased. If at all the appellant had any grievance, he could have only against his brother P.W.3 and not against D1 and D2. Under the circumstances, it cannot be stated to be any provocation which was lingering or any sustained provocation. If at all the appellant had any grievance, he could have only against his brother P.W.3 and not against D1 and D2. Under the circumstances, it cannot be stated to be any provocation which was lingering or any sustained provocation. Now the contention put forth by the learned counsel that the act of the accused was due to the, provocation and also sustained provocation has no effect at all, and hence it has got to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 20 For the reasons stated above, it is a case where the prosecution has brought home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the crime of murder (two counts). The trial Court was perfectly correct in marshalling the evidence, considering the same and taking the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Judge was perfectly correct in awarding life sentence (two counts) and ordering to run concurrently. There is nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court. 21 In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.