JUDGMENT : R. Hemalatha, J. (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to set aside the judgment and conviction of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 19.03.2015, passed in S.C.No.334 of 2013.) 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2015, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No.334 of 2013, in and by which the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (for each count) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (for each count) and in default , to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year. 2. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence, is as follows: i. The appellant Senthil, a weaver by profession, was residing with his wife Sangeetha (P.W.2) and his two sons, namely, Murugan @ Velmurugan, aged 7 years, and Keerthivasan, aged 6 years (both deceased), at Shanmugapuram, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. ii. Sangeetha (P.W.2), wife of the appellant, was working in an imitation jewelery shop and since the appellant suspected her fidelity, she left for her parents’ house at Pennagram, with her two sons, Murugan @ Velmurugan and Keerthivasan. iii. On 26.08.2012, when the appellant went to his in-law’s house to bring his wife Sangeetha (P.W.2) and his two sons back home, Sangeetha (P.W.2) allegedly refused to go with him. He took his sons along with him, instead, on the same day. iv. On 27.08.2012, in the morning he threatened his wife (P.W. 2) that he would end his life. This threat was not taken seriously by her because he had a habit of issuing such threats. On the same day in the afternoon, the appellant took up his two sons from their school at Tiruchengode at about 3 p.m. in his motorcycle and proceeded towards Kaveri river, Mettur. v. Saravanan (P.W.6), a fisherman, who was ferrying in the river alongwith his brother one Sekar, saw the accused at about 6 p.m. on 27.08.2012, sitting with his two sons on a rock in the Kavery river, near M.G.R. bridge, and when he enquired the appellant as to why he was sitting there, the appellant had replied that he had come over there to take bath in the Kaveri river. Saravanan (P.W.6) advised him to leave the place. vi. Saravanan (P.W.6) advised him to leave the place. vi. At about 7 p.m., Lakshmi (P.W.7), a shepherd, saw the appellant alone coming out of a bush near Kaveri river bed and thereafter, taking his motorcycle and leaving the place. vii. On 28.08.2012, the appellant Senthil went to the office of Thiru.Karunakaran (P.W.1), Revenue Inspector, Mettur, at about 7.30 a.m and made an extra-judicial confession before him stating that on 27.08.2012, he pushed his sons, Murugan @ Velmurugan and Keerthivasan, to death into the Kaveri river as he was unhappy that his wife refused to live with him. He further contended that he also jumped into the river with an intention to end his life, but since he knew swimming, he did not get drowned. P.W.1 handed over the appellant to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, and lodged a complaint (Ex-P1) with the police based on the extra judicial confession. viii. FIR (Ex.P18) in Crime No.347/2012 of Mettur Police Station was registered by Thiru. Manjunatha (P.W.14), Sub Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, on 28.08.2012 at about 8.15 a.m. for an offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. ix. Thiru. Muthamizh Selvarasu (P.W.16), Inspector of Police, Mettur police station, took up investigation in Crime No.347 of 2012 and recorded the police confessional statement of the appellant and based on his confession, (admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P2) P.W.16 along with the appellant went to the office of the Revenue Inspector and seized the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN34K4403 (M.O.1), which was parked there and also the ID cards of the two deceased children, issued by the school authorities (M.O.2 ) and also a mobile phone (M.O.3) kept in the motor cycle (M O-1) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of P.W.1 and D.Srinivasan, his assistant (not examined). x. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer (PW-16) visited the scene of occurrence with the appellant and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and a rough sketch (Ex.P19) in the presence of the same witnesses. xi. Thereafter, the fire personnel were summoned to the scene of occurrence who along with two local fishermen, Saravanan(P.W.6) and Sekar (not examined) fished out the bodies of both the boys, Murugan @ Velmurugan and Keerthivasan. xi. Thereafter, the fire personnel were summoned to the scene of occurrence who along with two local fishermen, Saravanan(P.W.6) and Sekar (not examined) fished out the bodies of both the boys, Murugan @ Velmurugan and Keerthivasan. The uniforms (M.O.4 to M.O.6) worn by the deceased boys were recovered under the cover of a mahazar Ex.P5 in the presence of the witnesses P.W1 and his assistant. The bodies were identified by Sangeetha (P.W.2), the mother of the deceased boys. Chinnapappa (P.W.3), the mother of P.W.2 and Sathya(P.W.5), the sister of P.W.2 were also present in the scene of occurrence during the search operation. xii. The Investigation Officer conducted inquest on the two bodies in the presence of panchayatdhars. The Inquest Reports were marked as Ex.P20 and Ex.P21. Subsequently, the dead bodies of the two boys were sent for postmortem through Thiru. Anbazhagan (P.W.13), Head Constable, Mettur Police Station, to the Government Hospital, Mettur. xiii. Dr.Radhakrishnan (P.W.11), Assistant Surgeon, Mettur Government Hospital, performed autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and did not find any external injuries. He sent the visceral organs to the forensic lab and also sternum for diatom test. The bone case reports (Ex.P10 and Ex.P15) showed that hyoid bone was in tact for both the deceased Murugan @ Velmurugan and Keerthivasan. The Viscera Reports (Ex.P11 and Ex.P16) and the Biological Reports (Ex.P12 and Ex.P17) of both the deceased showed that there was no poison in the visceral organs and no diatom was detected in sternum of both the deceased. Based on the above reports, Dr.Radhakrishnan, gave his final opinion that both the deaths were due to asphyxia caused by drowning. The postmortem reports were marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P14. xiv. Tmt.Vanitha (P.W.8), 3rd standard teacher, Tmt. Megala (P.W.9), 2nd standard teacher along with Tmt. Amudha (P.W.10), the Headmistress of Municipal Middle School, Tiruchengode, had categorically deposed that both the boys (studying in 2nd and 3rd standard) in their school attended the classes in the morning on 27.08.2012 and were taken by their father during lunch time after getting permission from all the three of them. According to them, the children did not attend the post lunch classes. The copies of the Attendance Registers were marked as Ex.P6 (3rd standard) and Ex.P7 (2nd standard), which showed that the children attended only the morning session and not the post lunch session. xv. According to them, the children did not attend the post lunch classes. The copies of the Attendance Registers were marked as Ex.P6 (3rd standard) and Ex.P7 (2nd standard), which showed that the children attended only the morning session and not the post lunch session. xv. The statement under Section 164 Cr.PC by Sangeetha (P.W.2), the mother of the deceased was recorded by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, and the same was marked as Ex.P.27. xvi. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur, in PRC No.40 of 2012. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, after furnishing copies of records under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, after framing a charge under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) against the accused. xvii. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 16 Witnesses and marked 32 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. xviii. When the accused was questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of Cr.PC, he denied having committed any offence. He examined one witness, Kaladevi (DW-1), the mid-day meal organiser of the school. He also marked a copy of the Attendance Register (Ex.D1) maintained by the school authorities under the noon meal scheme in the school. 3. Mr. B. Krishnamani Appukutti, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, (1) the extra-judicial confessional statement cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that no other incriminating evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. (2) there are corrections in the Attendance Registers (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) for which proper explanation has not been given by the school teachers. (3) the postmortem reports conclude that the deaths were due to drowning while the diatom test is negative and therefore contradicts the prosecution theory. (4) there are many missing links in the theory of prosecution and the entire case has been built up on the weak premise of extra-judicial confession of the appellant. (5) even assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant committed murder of his two children, it was only due to grave and sudden provocation as his wife left for her parents’ house due to marital discord. 4. Per contra, Mr. (5) even assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant committed murder of his two children, it was only due to grave and sudden provocation as his wife left for her parents’ house due to marital discord. 4. Per contra, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. He would also contend that there were no other reason which could be attributed for the deaths of the two children especially in the light of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. It was further argued that only based on the extra-judicial confession, the Revenue Inspector, had lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) in the police and thereafter, the bodies of the deceased boys were recovered from the river. The appellant also identified the scene of occurrence. It is also his contention that there are no missing links in the chain of events as narrated by the prosecution as P.W.6 had seen the appellant with his two children sitting on a rock in the Kaveri river on 27-08-2012 at 6 pm and P.W.7 had seen the appellant alone coming out of a bush in the river bed of Kaveri later in the same evening. 5. On a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution it is clear that Karunakaran (PW1) had lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) with the police based on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and on the appellant identifying the place of occurrence the bodies of the two children were fished out from Kavery river, Mettur. It would not have been possible to trace the bodies of the children from a spot in Mettur which is 45 km away from the school / residence of the children/appellant at Tiruchengodu, without the extra-judicial confession of the appellant. 6. Saravanan (P.W.6), a fisherman, deposed that he along with one Sekar (not examined) saw the appellant with his two sons sitting on a rock in the evening of 27.08.2012 at 6 pm and that when enquired, the appellant had told P.W.6 his intention of taking bath in the river. P.W.6 reportedly warned him not to bathe. At that point of time, P.W.6 and his companion were on a ferry. P.W.6 reportedly warned him not to bathe. At that point of time, P.W.6 and his companion were on a ferry. The very next day, P.W.6 when he found the police and fire services men searching the bodies of the boys near the same spot, realised that the boys he saw a day earlier were the ones for which the search was on. Lakshmi (P.W.7) who is a fisher woman as well as a shepherd, deposed that she saw the appellant in the evening of 27.08.2012 at 7 pm emerging from behind a bush and taking his motorcycle. She further claimed that the appellant was alone when she saw him at about 7 p.m. Both these witnesses were residents of that area and had seen the appellant in the scene of occurrence and P.W.6 had seen the deceased boys too with the appellant. Interestingly, P.W.7 is the wife of Sekar who was reportedly with Saravanan (P.W.6) in the ferry but not examined as a witness. The evidence of P.W.6 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.7 and nothing useful was suggested during the course of cross examination to discredit or disbelieve their evidence. While P.W.6 saw the father and two sons together near the place of occurrence, P.W.7 saw the father returning from a bush in the vicinity of the place of occurrence before riding away in his motorcycle. 7. This apart, P.W.2 in her deposition mentioned that there was a threat over phone by the appellant in the morning of 27-08-2012 that he would end his life. Such threats were not uncommon from the appellant, according to her, and therefore, she took it as an empty threat. This is also the version of P.W.5, who is the sister of P.W.2. According to P.W.5, the appellant had threatened his relatives frequently that he would commit suicide. This type of threats was a regular one and therefore, no relative took his threats seriously. 8. The two class teachers (P.W.8 and P.W.9) and the Head Mistress (P.W.10) of the Tiruchengode Municipality Middle School were categorical in their deposition while stating that both the deceased boys were picked up by their father, the appellant, during lunch time itself. They did not suspect any foul play. Kaladevi (D.W.1), the mid-day meal organiser also corroborated the version of the teachers and the Head Mistress that the appellant took the children even before they had lunch. They did not suspect any foul play. Kaladevi (D.W.1), the mid-day meal organiser also corroborated the version of the teachers and the Head Mistress that the appellant took the children even before they had lunch. The teachers and the Head Mistress have vouched for the genuineness of the Attendance Register extracts (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) and also withstood the testimony of cross examination. The Attendance Register extracts do not arouse any suspicion. 9. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that absence of diatom is indicative of death not due to drowning, the doctor (P.W.11) who did the postmortem was not cross examined at all on this aspect. Diatoms, unicellular or colonial algae, are detectable in water, air and soil. The diatom method of diagnosis of drowning is based on the assumption that if valid cardio-respiratory activity occurs, diatoms reach the lung with liquid inhalation and disseminate via the blood stream into the organs. Conversely, if a corpse is immersed in water, the lack of cardiac activity prevents diatom transport to closed organs. However, the absence of diatom in a body does not exclude drowning as the cause of death, and can be related to low diatom concentrations in the drowning medium, low volume of inhaled liquid or insufficient volume of tissue sampled at autopsy. In the absence of any cross examination of the expert witnesses on these aspects, it cannot be held that the deaths were not due to drowning. 10. The distance between Thiruchengode where the school was located and the scene of crime in Mettur, where the bodies of the deceased were found is 45 km. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no eyewitness who claimed to have seen the appellant with his sons on the motorcycle, when they were being taken to Mettur. We feel that it was not necessary too. There are witnesses in the origin point, that is in the school, and also in the scene of occurrence in Mettur who saw the appellant along with his deceased kids on 27-08-2012 itself. It is an incident which took place 45 km away from the school. The kids studying in 2nd and 3rd standard would not have traveled that far without the help of their father. There is no denial that the bodies of the boys were fished out from the river in Mettur. It is an incident which took place 45 km away from the school. The kids studying in 2nd and 3rd standard would not have traveled that far without the help of their father. There is no denial that the bodies of the boys were fished out from the river in Mettur. It is also established that the appellant was the one who brought the children from their grand mother’s place the previous day. The boys had attended school on 27-08-2012 and were taken away by the appellant during lunch time. The appellant himself had felt guilty of his act and confessed to the Revenue Inspector (P.W.1). There is no eye witness for the killing except the appellant himself. But there is no other possible theory for the unfortunate deaths. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also finally rested his arguments that it was due to a sudden and grave provocation on the part of the appellant that he killed his children. This argument is not convincing. The element of grave and sudden provocation cannot find a place in this sequence of events. Even assuming that it was a result of the appellant’s anger against his wife (P.W.2), why the anger was targeted against the two innocent children who reposed great faith in their father, only to be deceived is incomprehensible. They would not have ventured out that far without their father whom they believed, for it to be termed as an accident, as earlier suggested by the defence during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses in the Trial Court. 12. The appellant was reportedly frustrated over his financial and marital problems when he decided to end his life but before that to kill his two sons. Such cruel thoughts of killing his own sons for his anger against his wife is baffling. His dejection caused due to his problems cannot be any justification for the murder of his sons. He had forcibly taken away his children from his wife’s place initially just a day before the ghastly murder and then taken the children from the school during lunch time under some false pretext. These clearly indicate his plan and motive. The extra-judicial confession is not the solitary evidence holding the prosecution theory intact. All other pieces of evidence fit in the prosecution version with precision. These clearly indicate his plan and motive. The extra-judicial confession is not the solitary evidence holding the prosecution theory intact. All other pieces of evidence fit in the prosecution version with precision. Thus the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant without any reasonable doubt and we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. 13. In the result, (i) This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 19.03.2015, in S.C.No.334 of 2013, is confirmed.