JUDGMENT Mr. S.NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 12 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 IPC (2 counts) and 506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 27.9.2002, the trial Court convicted him under all the charges. For the offence under Section 302 IPC (2 Counts), the trial Court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) The appellant is the husband of one Mrs.Muthu Nagu (hereinafter referred to as D2). P.W.4 is son and one Poorna Devi is the daughter of D2. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the brother of D2 and P.W.3 is a friend of D2. Yet another deceased in this case was one Chandrasekaran (hereinafter referred to as D1). D1 had illicit intimacy with D2. This was opposed by the accused. But, they did not stop their intimacy. This is projected as the motive for the occurrence. (ii) P.W.1 was working in TNC Godown in Karaikudi. The accused was also working in the same godown. On 26.5.2001, at about 6. p.m., the accused told P.W.1 that he was worried about the illicit intimacy between D1 and D2. He further told that the same should be put to an end to. Thereafter, PW1 and the accused returned to their respective houses. (iii) At about 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 was proceeding to the house of the accused along with P.W.2. According to them, they went to the house of the deceased only to pacify the accused. When they were nearing the house of the deceased, they heard the cry of D2 from her house. They at once rushed to the house of D2. When they entered into the house, they found the accused cutting D1 and D2 with aruval. Both fell down with serious injuries and died instantaneously. The accused criminally intimidated P.W.1 and P.W.2 with dire consequences and ran away from the scene of occurrence. They at once rushed to the house of D2. When they entered into the house, they found the accused cutting D1 and D2 with aruval. Both fell down with serious injuries and died instantaneously. The accused criminally intimidated P.W.1 and P.W.2 with dire consequences and ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5 also. (iv) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Karaikudi North Police Station and preferred a complaint (vide Exhibit P-1). P.W.14 is then Special Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Karaikudi North Police Station and registered a case on the said complaint at 9.40 p.m., on 26.5.2001 in Crime No. 183 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-11 is the F.I.R. Then, he forwarded Exhibits P-1 and P-11 to the learned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and then, handed over the case to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (v) P.W.17 was the then Inspector of Police attached to Karaikudi North Police Station. Taking up the case for investigation on 26.5.2001, at 10.45 p.m., he proceed to the place of occurrence where he prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness and a Rough Sketch. Then, he arranged for taking photograph of the place of occurrence. He examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and a few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 11.45 p.m.,. Exhibit P-22 is the Inquest Report on the body of D2 and then, he conducted inquest on the body of D1 and prepared Exhibit P-23. Then, he forwarded the dead bodies to the hospital for post-mortem. (vi) P.W.10 Dr. Kowsalya was the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, then. She conducted autopsy on the body of D2 on 27.5.2001 at 12. noon and found the following injuries: 1. Cut injury of the (Rt) thumb bulb thumb is hanging. 2. A cut injury 3 x 1 cm size 5 cm above the Lt Wrist on dorsum exposing the bones. 3. A cut injury 10 X 1 cm size from Rt Wrist crossing the Rt palm cutting the carpal and metacarpal bones 4. A7 x ½ cm cut injury 5 cm below Rt ear on Rt side of neck exposing the muscles. 5. A7 X ½ cm cutting ½ cm below the wound No.4 cutting the muscles. 6. 3. A cut injury 10 X 1 cm size from Rt Wrist crossing the Rt palm cutting the carpal and metacarpal bones 4. A7 x ½ cm cut injury 5 cm below Rt ear on Rt side of neck exposing the muscles. 5. A7 X ½ cm cutting ½ cm below the wound No.4 cutting the muscles. 6. A8 x ½ cm cut injury1 cm below the wound No.5 cutting the muscles. 7. A9 x 1 cm cut injury 1 cm below the wound No.6 cutting the muscles sub division vessels and fracture of Rt clavile present. 8. 8 x 1 cm cut injury on the back just below the neck cutting the muscles and vertibra exposed. Exhibit P-8 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. He collected swab and blood sample from D2 and forwarded the same for chemical examination. According to him, the deceased died of injuries sustained. (vii) P.W.11 Tmt. Dr.Kamatchi conducted autopsy on the body of D1 on 27.5.2001 at 10.30 a.m.,. She found the following injuries: 1. Cut injury in the Lt side of latral aspect 4 cm size ext. from Ant border of Lt. Sterno mastoid muscle to post border of s/m muscle cut open of Lt. Side earotid artery. 2. Another cut injury on Exhibit from one occipital profeuperone to another Cut open of I st Cervical Vertebra as well as vertebral artery. Exhibit P-10 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. She opined that the death was due to injuries. Both the doctors have opined that the injuries on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 aruval. (viii) Continuing the investigation, P.W.17 collected dress materials from the dead bodies of both the deceased as well as other material objects found on the bodies. Then, he forwarded the material objects collected to the Court. The accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai on 29.5.2001. On the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, he took him into his custody on 4.6.2001. On the same day, at 8.00 p.m., while in the Police Station, the accused made a voluntary confession to P.W.17 in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. In the said statement, he had disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. On the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, he took him into his custody on 4.6.2001. On the same day, at 8.00 p.m., while in the Police Station, the accused made a voluntary confession to P.W.17 in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. In the said statement, he had disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took the Investigation Officer and the witnesses to Ariyakudi Village and from beneath a bridge, he took out M.O.1 aruval and produced the same. He also produced M.O.6 a full hand shirt. P.W.17 recovered the same under a Mahazar. Then, he took sample fingerprints of the accused. On 6.6.2001, he produced the accused before the Court. On the request made by P.W.17, P.W.15, the then Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Exhibit P-15 is the statement of P.W.1. Exhibit P-16 is the statement of P.W.2. The accused was produced before P.W.15 for recording confession. But, the accused told the learned Judicial Magistrate that he had nothing to do with the death of the deceased and thus, he did not confess. On completing the investigation, P.W.17 laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above material, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 (2 Counts) and 506(ii) IPC. The accused pleaded innocence. In order to establish the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited besides 22 Material Objects. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty under Sections 302 (2 counts) and 506 (ii) IPC and accordingly, punished him. That is how the accused is before this Court. 4. In this appeal, originally, one Mr. T. Munirathnam Naidu, the learned counsel, was on record. Though the appeal was listed on several occasions for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. The appeal has been pending from the year 2002. The warrant issued by this Court to secure the accused could not be executed. In those circumstances, this Court thought it fit to appoint a Legal Aid counsel to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, Mr. R. Alagumani, learned counsel with good standing at the Bar was appointed. 5. The warrant issued by this Court to secure the accused could not be executed. In those circumstances, this Court thought it fit to appoint a Legal Aid counsel to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, Mr. R. Alagumani, learned counsel with good standing at the Bar was appointed. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel submitted that notice sent by him by Registered Post to the appellant to the address given has been returned by the postal authorities stating that there is no such addressee. The learned counsel submitted that he would argue the case based on the materials available on record. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and we have also perused the records carefully. 6. As we have stated above, P.Ws.1 to 5 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that none of these witnesses could be believed. According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at all at the place of occurrence. Because, P.W.1 in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C in Exhibit P-15, has stated that when he went to the house of the deceased, the occurrence was already over. He has been duly contradicted with the said statement. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.5, a neighbour, has stated that while he was taking tea in the nearby tea shop, he heard that the deceased had been done to death. Therefore, he came to the place of occurrence and found a huge crowd of people. At 8.15 p.m., the police arrived. After the arrival of police, an information was passed on to P.W.1 and P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the place of occurrence. From this evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at the time and place of occurrence. 7. In respect of P.W.3, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though in chief examination, he has stated that he had seen the occurrence, in cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the accused anywhere near the place of occurrence and he did not see the occurrence at all. 7. In respect of P.W.3, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though in chief examination, he has stated that he had seen the occurrence, in cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the accused anywhere near the place of occurrence and he did not see the occurrence at all. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 also is of no use for the prosecution. In respect of P.W.4, the learned counsel would submit that he is a child witness. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was in the neighbouring house and after the occurrence, the neighbour brought him to his house, and, at that time, he found both the deceased dead. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.4 is also of no use. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that even in chief examination, he has stated that he did not see the occurrence. Thus, none of the evidences of the witnesses could be useful for the prosecution to hold the accused guilty. 8. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused has committed a heinous crime of double murder. He would submit that P.W.4 has very vividly spoken to about the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are related to D2, have explained their presence at the time of occurrence. P.W.3 is a friend of D2 and she has also seen the occurrence. Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. So far as P.W.1 is concerned in his evidence, he has stated that he witnessed the entire occurrence. But, in his statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-15), he has stated that when he went to the house of the deceased, the occurrence had already been over and both the deceased were found lying dead. The evidence of P.W.1 has been duly contradicted with this statement. According to the said statement, P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1. From this, it could be inferred that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence at all. The evidence of P.W.1 has been duly contradicted with this statement. According to the said statement, P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1. From this, it could be inferred that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence at all. It needs to be mentioned that the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not anywhere near the place of occurrence. Thus, their presence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. 11. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.5 assumes importance. He is a neighbour of D2. According to him, when he was taking tea in a nearby a tea shop, he heard the cries and when he rushed to the scene of occurrence, a huge crowd had gathered already. Thereafter, the police also arrived. From the F.I.R, it could be seen that the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is 2½ kms. Going by this short distance, we can infer that the police would have been present at 8.15 p.m., as stated by P.W.5. He has further stated that after the arrival of police, information was passed on to P.W.1 and P.W.2 who were then at their respective house and thereafter, only P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the place of occurrence. This witness has not been treated as hostile. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.5, it has been established that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at the time of occurrence. Therefore, their evidence is of no use for the prosecution. 12. Turning to the evidence of P.W.3, he has also stated during cross-examination that he did not see the occurrence at all and he did not see the accused also at the time of occurrence anywhere near the place of occurrence. Thus, he has given a complete go by to his evidence spoken to in the chief examination. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 also does not go to the help of the prosecution. 13. Turning to the evidence of P.W.4, during the cross-examination, he has stated that D1 and D2 were in the house of D2. D2 wanted him to go out for playing. Accordingly, he went to the neighbouring house where he was playing. He has further stated that the neighbour took him to the house of D2. At that time, he found both the deceased lying dead. D2 wanted him to go out for playing. Accordingly, he went to the neighbouring house where he was playing. He has further stated that the neighbour took him to the house of D2. At that time, he found both the deceased lying dead. Thus, though in chief examination, he has stated that he saw the occurrence and though he has vividly stated that it was this accused who cut D2 and D1, in view of the admissions made during cross-examination, the said witness cannot be believed to be an eye-witness. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is also of no use to the prosecution. 14. Thus, we are not persuaded to believe the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are allegedly the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. There is no other evidence incriminating the accused. In view of the above, we hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and the sentenced imposed on the appellant are set aside and is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. The Bail Bonds stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.