Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2318 (MAD)

Marappan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

2025-04-28

M.S.RAMESH, N.SENTHILKUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT M.S.RAMESH, J. Both the appellants herein were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively and were charged of having committed the offences under Section 449 r/w. Section 34 of IPC , 302 (2 counts) r/w. Section 34 of IPC , Section 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 324 (2 counts) r/w. Section 34 of IPC by the respondent. The Trial Court, through its judgment dated 18.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.30 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Namakkal, had recorded the guilt of both the accused and passed the following sentence:- Accused Offence Sentence A1 & A2 449 r/w. Section 34 of IPC 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months imprisonment; 302 (2 counts) r/w. Section 34 of IPC Life imprisonment (2 counts) and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (2 counts) in default to undergo 1 year RI; Section 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year RI; Section 324 (2 counts) r/w. Section 34 of IPC 4 months RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (2 counts) in default to undergo 1 month RI. 2. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereto are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 4.1 The brief case of the prosecution are as follows:- 4.2 The first accused is the father of the second accused. Ayyavu @ Periannan/first deceased (D1) and Sivakumar/second deceased (D2), who owned agricultural land adjacent to that of the accused, had disputes with the accused with regard to a pathway and thereby both the accused developed a common intention to eliminate the entire family members of the deceased. 4.3 On 03.04.2016 at about 00.30 hours, when D1 was sleeping on a cot in front of his house, both the accused had criminally trespassed into the agricultural lands of the deceased persons, with a common intention to eliminate their family members. At that time, D2, along with his wife Lavanya and child were sleeping inside the house. Marayee, wife of D1, was sleeping in a room inside the house. A1 stabbed D1 in the lower chest using a spear. At that time, D2, along with his wife Lavanya and child were sleeping inside the house. Marayee, wife of D1, was sleeping in a room inside the house. A1 stabbed D1 in the lower chest using a spear. A2 caused cut injuries on several parts of the body of D1 using a sword and thereby caused fatal injuries to D1. When Marayee attempted to intervene, A2 inflicted cut injuries on her right arm and right side of lower chest, whereby she sustained grievous injuries. At that time, when D2 and his wife Lavanya came out of their room and attempted to prevent the assault, A1 and A2 sprayed water mixed with chilli powder, cow- dung powder and glass powder on the face of D2 and his wife. Thereafter, A2 inflicted many cut injuries on the vital parts of the body of D2 with his sword. Both the deceased succumbed to these injuries and therefore, both the accused were charged for the various offences, as detailed above. 4.4 After framing of charges, the same were read over and explained to both the accused and they denied and pleaded that they were not guilty. 5. The case then proceeded for trial. In order to substantiate their case before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.23 and marked 39 documentary evidences namely Exs.P1 to P39, apart from 21 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.21. On the side of the defense, no oral or documentary evidences were let in. 6.1 Before the Trial Court, Lavanya (P.W.1) was examined by the prosecution as eye-witness to the occurrence. According to her testimony, there was a long standing land dispute between the families of D1, D2, A1 and A2. On 03.04.2016 at about 00.30 hours, when P.W.1 heard her mother- in-law - Marayee (P.W.4) wailing, she along with D2, rushed out of their room to find her father-in-law (D1) lying down with cut injuries on his shoulders, face, legs and other places. At that time, she saw A2 assaulting her mother-in-law (P.W.4) on her shoulder and right breast with a sword and A1 threw water mixed with cow-dung powder on her and D2 and then assaulted D2 on head, shoulder, neck and other places with the sword. At that time, she saw A2 assaulting her mother-in-law (P.W.4) on her shoulder and right breast with a sword and A1 threw water mixed with cow-dung powder on her and D2 and then assaulted D2 on head, shoulder, neck and other places with the sword. P.W.1 had then raised an alarm by which Palaniappan (P.W.2), Manikandan (P.W.3), Marayee (P.W.4), Saraswathi (P.W.5) and Papitha (P.W.6), who were residing behind her house, came rushing there. On seeing them, both the accused had fled the scene. According to her testimony, her father-in-law/D1 died on the spot. Since her husband/D2 was struggling for his life and her mother-in- law/P.W.4 also sustained grievous injuries, she along with the others, had taken D2 and P.W.4 in separate vehicles to Rasipuram Hospital, where D2 was declared to have been brought dead. P.W.4 was given first aid and referred to Salem Government Hospital for further treatment. She had then given a complaint to the Police, which was marked as Ex.P1 and her signature therein was marked as Ex.P2. The sword which A2 used for committing the crime was marked as M.O.1. The bucket and small mug, which A1 had used to throw water mixture, was marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. The green colour lungi which D2 was wearing at the time of occurrence was marked as M.O.4. 6.2 Though the prosecution had examined Palaniappan (P.W.2), who is the younger brother of D1 and Manikandan (P.W.3), son of P.W.2, as eye- witnesses to the occurrence, both of them in their respective testimonies had stated that, when they heard P.W.1 wailing and calling for help, they rushed to the house of the deceased in the backyard, at which point of time, they saw both the deceased and P.W.4 were already assaulted and lying in pool of blood. When inquired, they were informed that A1 and A2 had caused injuries. Thereafter, they had taken D2 and P.W.4 to the hospital. 6.3 Marayee – P.W.4, who is the wife of D1, did not support the case of the prosecution and was treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. 6.4 The other independent witnesses Papitha (P.W.6), Palanivelu (P.W.7), Senthilkumar (P.W.8), Kutti @ Selvakumar (P.W.9), Sengodan (P.W.10), Sakthivel (P.W.13) and Subramani (P.W.15) also did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile witnesses. 6.4 The other independent witnesses Papitha (P.W.6), Palanivelu (P.W.7), Senthilkumar (P.W.8), Kutti @ Selvakumar (P.W.9), Sengodan (P.W.10), Sakthivel (P.W.13) and Subramani (P.W.15) also did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile witnesses. 6.5 Chinnamani @ Kumar (P.W.11) and Palanivel (P.W.12), who are the mahazar witnesses, were treated as hostile witnesses. 6.6 Chandrasekar (P.W.15) is the Village Administrative Officer, who had witnessed the arrest of both the accused and recorded their confessions to the Police. The signatures in confession statements of both the accused were marked as Exs.P6 and P8 and the admissible portion therein were marked as Exs.P7 & P9 respectively. 6.7 Based on the confession, the Investigating Officer had seized the spear measuring 47 cm in length (M.O.1), blood stained blue colour trousers (M.O.7), blood stained black striped half shirt (M.O.8), blood stained sweater (M.O.9) under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P10). He also recovered A2's black shorts (M.O.10), blood stained half baniyan (M.O.11) and blood stained half shirt (M.O.12), which were all seized through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P11). 6.8 Arul (P.W.16) is the Head Constable, who had received the F.I.R. in Crime No.112 of 2016 from the Sub Inspector of Police and transmitted the same to the Judicial Magistrate at 09.00 A.M. 6.9 Dr.R.Vijaykumar (P.W.17) is the casualty doctor attached to Rasipuram Government Hospital, who treated P.W.4. In his evidence, he had deposed that P.W.4 had a cut injury from her right shoulder to stomach, measuring 50x8x5 cms. The Accident Register of P.W.4 was marked as Ex.P13. 6.10 Dr.Arulselvan (P.W.18) is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of both D1 and D2. The requisition letters for conducting the post- mortems on D1 and D2 were marked as Exs.P14 & P16 and their post- mortem certificates were marked as Exs.P15 & P17. As per the post-mortem certificate of D1, the following injuries were recorded:- “ INJURIES: CUT INJURY OVER LEFT UPPER CHEST 8CMS FROM MIDLINE M-8X3XMUSCLE DEEP 2. CUT WOUND AT THE LEVEL OF MIDDLE OF NOSE EXTENDING FROM BELOW THE LEFT EAR UP TO RIGHT EAR M-30X5CMSX BONE DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF CERVICAL VERTEBRA 3. CUT INJURY EXTENDING FROM ABOVE THE LEFT EAR UP TO RIGHT CHEEK M-28X5CMS X BONE DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF CERVICAL VERTEBRA 4. CUT INJURY OVER INNER ASPECT OF UPPER ARM M-7X2CMSXMUSCLE DEEP 5. CUT INJURY 1CMS BELOW THE INJURY NO.4 M-9X4CMSX MUSCLE DEEP 6. CUT INJURY EXTENDING FROM ABOVE THE LEFT EAR UP TO RIGHT CHEEK M-28X5CMS X BONE DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF CERVICAL VERTEBRA 4. CUT INJURY OVER INNER ASPECT OF UPPER ARM M-7X2CMSXMUSCLE DEEP 5. CUT INJURY 1CMS BELOW THE INJURY NO.4 M-9X4CMSX MUSCLE DEEP 6. STAB INJURY OVER RIGHT LOWER CHEST 12CMS FROM MID LINE M 3X2CMSXHOLLOW DEEP 7. CUT INJURY OVER LEFT LOWER LEG ABOVE ANKLE JOINT M-8X3CMSXBONE DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF TIBIAL BONE. IN ALL THE ABOVE INJURIES EXTRAVASATION OF BLOOD SEEN IN TO THE SURROUNDING SOFT TISSUE (ANTE MORTEM)” In the post-mortem certificate of D2, the following injuries were recorded:- “ INJURIES: 1. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT SHOULDER M-10X4CMSXMUSCLE DEEP 2. CUT INJURY 2CMS BELOW THE INJURY NO.1 M-5X1CMSXMUSCLE DEEP. 3. CUT INJURY OVER UPPER ASPECT OF RIGHT CHEST M-24X3CMSXMUSCLE DEEP 4. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT UPPER SCAPULAR REGION M-12X3CMSXBONE DEEP 5. CUT INJURY 1CMS BELOW THE INJURY NO.4 M-18X2CMSXMUSCLE DEEP 6. CUT INJURY EXTENDING FROM RIGHT FRONTAL REGION UP TO RIGHT CHEEK M-19X3XBRAIN DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF FRONTAL AND CHEEK BONES AND BRAIN. 7. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT TEMPORO PARIETAL REGION M-17X3XBRAIN DEEP EXPOSING UNDERLYING CUT FRACTURE OF TEMPORAL AND PARIETAL BONES AND BRAIN. 8. CUT INJURY OVER RIGHT OCCIPITAL REGION M-9X3X1CMS. IN ALL THE ABOVE INJURIES EXTRAVASATION OF BLOOD SEEN IN TO THE SURROUNDING SOFT TISSUE (ANTE MORTEM)” 6.11 Dr.Kesavamoorthy (P.W.19) had given further treatment to P.W.4 at Coimbatore. In the wound certificate of P.W.4 (Ex.P18), he had recorded the injuries on P.W.4 as follows:- “ Injuries: 1. Sutured wound medial aspect of (R) arm - 10 cm with drain in situ. On exploration injury to Biceps and Brachialis muscle. Median nerve and musculocutaneous nerve injury. 2. Sutured wound over (R) side of chest wall and abdomen extending from axilla to loin. INJURY (1) GRIEVOUS IN NATURE” The accident register of P.W.4 was marked as Ex.P19. 6.12 Mr.Babu (P.W.20) is the Police Constable, who had accompanied the body of D2 for post-mortem. He had forwarded the vital organs from the body of D2 to the Forensic Experts. 6.13 Likewise, Mr.K.Kamaraj (P.W.21) is the Police Constable who accompanied the body of D1 for post-mortem and the grey colour lungi of D2 which he recovered, was marked as M.O.14. 6.14 Mrs.Chandrakala, Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the complaint of P.W.1 under Crime No.112 of 2016, was examined as P.W.22. 6.13 Likewise, Mr.K.Kamaraj (P.W.21) is the Police Constable who accompanied the body of D1 for post-mortem and the grey colour lungi of D2 which he recovered, was marked as M.O.14. 6.14 Mrs.Chandrakala, Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the complaint of P.W.1 under Crime No.112 of 2016, was examined as P.W.22. 6.15 Balamurugan (P.W.23) is the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation. According to his testimony, on receiving the complaint on 03.04.2016, he had registered the F.I.R. in Crime No.112 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and transmitted the express F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate through P.W.16. On the same day, at about 03.30 A.M., he had visited the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P21) and rough sketch (Ex.P22) in the presence of witnesses. He then conducted an inquest over the body of D2 between 05.00 A.M. to 07.00 A.M. in the presence of Panchayats and other witnesses. The inquest report of D1 was marked as Ex.P23. He then collected blood stained flooring pieces and sample floors (M.O.15). The bits of rope from the cot in which the body of D1 was found was marked as M.O.16. All these materials were seized by him under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P24). He also collected the blood stained floor pieces and sample pieces (M.O.18), where the body of D2 was found and had seized them through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P26). He also collected the floor pieces containing the cow-dung liquid and sample floor bits (M.O.19). Similar samples of the wet walls were marked as M.O.20. All these were seized by him under seizure mahazar (Ex.P27). He then recorded the statements from several witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P28) over the body of D2. He then sent the body of D1 to Salem Government Hospital for post-mortem through his Head Constable (P.W.21). He thereafter arrested both A1 and A2 near MGR Statue at R.Pudupatti and recorded their voluntary confession statements in the presence of witnesses. On the same day, at 3.30 P.M., he had proceeded to A1's lands based on his confession and recorded blood stained spear (M.O.5), plastic bucket (M.O.2), plastic mug (M.O.3), blood stained blue colour pant (M.O.7), blood stained black half shirt (M.O.8), blood stained white shirt (M.O.9) in the presence of witnesses through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P29). On the same day, at 3.30 P.M., he had proceeded to A1's lands based on his confession and recorded blood stained spear (M.O.5), plastic bucket (M.O.2), plastic mug (M.O.3), blood stained blue colour pant (M.O.7), blood stained black half shirt (M.O.8), blood stained white shirt (M.O.9) in the presence of witnesses through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P29). On the basis of the confession of A2, he had recovered from A1's lands 4½X72cms sword (M.O.1), blood stained black short (M.O.10), blood stained baniyan (M.O.11), blood stained half shirt (M.O.12) through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P20). He then obtained the finger prints of both the accused at the Police Station at 04.45 P.M. and made arrangements for remanding them to judicial custody. Through a special report (Ex.P31), he had recorded the blood stained clothes of D1 in Form-91 and a special report of blood stained clothes of D2 was marked as Ex.P32. He thereafter recorded all the seized articles in Form-91 (8 numbers) (Ex.P33) and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate. While the viscera report of D2 was marked as Ex.P34, the viscera report of D1 was marked as Ex.P35. The forensic report of both D1 and D2 were marked as Exs.P36 & P37. The arrest report of both the accused were marked as Exs.P38 & P39 respectively. He then recorded the statements of all the medical officers namely P.W.17, P.W.18 and P.W.19. He also recorded the statements of 2 police constables, who had accompanied the bodies of both the deceased to the hospital for post-mortem. On completion of the investigation, he had filed the final report on 19.12.2016 before the Judicial Magistrate. 7. On the strength of these witnesses and evidences, the Trial Court had convicted both the accused and sentenced them to various imprisonments, as detailed above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the prosecution had examined 14 independent witnesses, except P.W.1 to P.W.3, all the other witnesses had turned hostile. It is also his submission that though the prosecution had projected P.W.1 to P.W.3 as eye-witnesses, the evidences let in by them, clearly establish that P.W.2 and P.W.3 had come to the place, only after the occurrence and therefore, they cannot be treated as eye-witnesses. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, he would submit that there is no corroboration of her statements and therefore, much credence should not be given to the same. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, he would submit that there is no corroboration of her statements and therefore, much credence should not be given to the same. He would further submit that there is a long standing dispute between the deceased and the accused families' and the complaint has been falsely made, with an ill motive of taking revenge on the accused. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that P.W.1 who is the daughter-in-law of D1 and wife of D2, is a natural witness, who was present in the scene of occurrence and who directly saw both the accused attacking D2 and P.W.4. She had also seen D1 lying down with cut injuries and covered with blood. According to him, even assuming that P.W.2 and P.W.3 had come immediately after the occurrence and had not seen the accused there, a conviction can be made on the sole eye-witness's statement which is reliable. He has also referred to the medical evidences of the doctor, forensic analysis, post-mortem certificates, as well as the wound certificates of D1 and D2 and submitted that these medical evidences corroborated with the statements of P.W.1, as well as the wound certificate of P.W.4. 10. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the submissions on either side and have perused the original records before the Trial Court. 11. Though the prosecution has projected P.W.2 who is the younger brother of D1 and P.W.3, son of P.W.2, as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, which took place on 03.04.2016 at 00.30 hours, their oral evidences before the Trial Court clearly establishes that both of them who were residing about 100 feet on the northern side of the deceased's house, had rushed to the scene of occurrence immediately on hearing the wailing and shouting of P.W.1, calling for help, only to find that D1, D2 and P.W.4 were already inflicted with cut injuries. Their testimonies also does not reveal that both these witnesses had seen the accused at the scene of occurrence. But merely because P.W.2 and P.W.3 came minutes later after the crime was committed, their oral evidences cannot be discarded right away, but rather it requires to be scrutinized, as to whether such statements inspire confidence so as to establish their presence at the scene of occurrence. But merely because P.W.2 and P.W.3 came minutes later after the crime was committed, their oral evidences cannot be discarded right away, but rather it requires to be scrutinized, as to whether such statements inspire confidence so as to establish their presence at the scene of occurrence. For such purpose, it would be appropriate to analyze the evidence of P.W.1, who has been projected as an eye-witness by the prosecution. 12. P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of D1 and P.W.4 and wife of D2. She has clearly stated that she was residing in the house of D1 and P.W.4 along with her husband D2 and their child. On the fateful day, she has deposed that while D1 was lying outside the house in a coir cot, she along with D2 and child were sleeping in a room inside the house. When P.W.1 had heard the cries and shout for help from P.W.4, she along with D2 had rushed out of the house where she witnessed A1 and A2 assaulting P.W.4. She also found D1 lying down in a pool of blood with cut injuries. Both A1 and A2, who were armed with spear and sword respectively, were assaulting P.W.4. The natural conduct at this point of time for D2, who is the son of D1 and P.W.4, is to go to the rescue of his mother, at which point of time, his approach was thwarted by A1, who threw a bucket of water mixed with cow-dung powder on D2 and P.W.1. At this point of time, she speaks about A2 assaulting D2 with a sword and had indiscriminately cut D2 with a sword in his head, shoulder, neck and other vital places. She has also mentioned the injuries inflicted by A2 on P.W.4 in her shoulder and right breast portion. She further describes the cut injuries on the shoulder, face, leg and other places in the body of D1. Though P.W.1 was subjected to intense cross-examinations by the defense, no contrary statements could be elicited from her so as to hold her evidence as unsafe for reliance. 13. On the other hand, on a cogent analysis of her evidence, both in chief and cross-examinations, touching upon her statements of having seen both the accused causing fatal injuries on D2 and grievous injuries on P.W.4, as well as injuries already caused on D1, we find no reason to disbelieve her testimony. 13. On the other hand, on a cogent analysis of her evidence, both in chief and cross-examinations, touching upon her statements of having seen both the accused causing fatal injuries on D2 and grievous injuries on P.W.4, as well as injuries already caused on D1, we find no reason to disbelieve her testimony. In the absence of the same, we have no difficulty in holding that the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent and convincing and inspires confidence to place reliance on her testimony. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it would be unsafe to place reliance on the sole testimony of P.W.1 alone. 15. Before we address the submission, it would be relevant to refer to the evidentiary value of a sole ocular witness. 16. In ' Joseph Vs. State of Kerala ' reported in (2003) 1 SCC 465 and ' State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh ' reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court should deal with the statement of sole eyewitness cautiously and after testing on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other evidences available on record. But at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence tendered by such a witness is credible, reliable, in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit confidence. 17. In 'Ramnaresh & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh' reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257 , reference was made to the cases in Jospeh and Inder Singh (supra) and thus held ' The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.' 18. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.' 18. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no difficulty in holding that if and when the testimony of the sole ocular witness inspires confidence since being cogent and convincing, the consequential conviction based on such sole testimony can be upheld. Even otherwise, we find that the statements made by P.W.1, touching upon the occurrence, to be corroborated by the evidences let in by P.W.2 and P.W.3, who had come to the scene of occurrence immediately, as well as the medical evidences. When the evidence of P.W.1 is read along with P.W.2 and P.W.3, it stands established that when P.W.2 and P.W.3 heard P.W.1 shouting for help, they had rushed to the scene within minutes and saw the cut injuries on the bodies of D1, D2 and P.W.4. Both of them had then helped P.W.1 to take D2 and P.W.4 to the hospital. Their statements in this regard, stands corroborated with the statements of P.W.1 also. 19. Insofar as the injuries inflicted by both the accused are concerned, P.W.1 had witnessed the cut injuries on the shoulder, face, leg and other parts of the body of D1. The evidence of P.W.18 who is the doctor who conducted post-mortem of both D1 and D2, also confirms cut injuries over the left upper chest, middle of nose extending from left ear to right ear, left ear to right cheek, 2 cut injuries in the upper arm, 1 stab injury over the right lower chest and a cut injury over the left lower leg, above the ankle joint. The injuries as spoken by P.W.18, also finds corroboration in Ex.P15, which is the post-mortem certificate of D1. 20. P.W.1 also speaks about A2 inflicting cut injuries on D2 on his head, shoulder, neck and other parts. The injuries as spoken by P.W.18, also finds corroboration in Ex.P15, which is the post-mortem certificate of D1. 20. P.W.1 also speaks about A2 inflicting cut injuries on D2 on his head, shoulder, neck and other parts. From the statement of P.W.18, as well as in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P17) of D2, the doctor has recorded 2 cut injuries over the right shoulder, a cut injury over the upper aspect of right chest, 2 cut injuries over the right upper scapular region, a cut injury extending from right frontal region up to the right cheek, a cut injury over the right temporal region and a cut injury over the right occipital region. 21. The overt acts of A2 as spoken to by P.W.1 matches with the evidence of P.W.18, as well as Ex.P17. Similarly, P.W.1 also speaks about A2 inflicting cut injuries on the shoulder and right breast of P.W.4. P.W.19 is the doctor who rendered further treatment to P.W.4 and recorded the accident register (Ex.P19) and issued the wound certificate (Ex.P18) of P.W.4. In his oral evidence, he records sutured wound medial aspect on right arm measuring 10 cm with drain in situ, as a grievous injury, apart from another sutured wound on the right side of chest wall and abdomen extending from axilla to loin. The oral statements of the doctor also corroborates with the wound certificate (Ex.P18), as well as the accident register (Ex.P19). 22. We find no reason to disbelieve the statements made by P.W.1, who is a person likely to be at the scene of occurrence, since she was living along with D1, D2 and P.W.4 in the same house. She also speaks about the previous enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused with regard to a long standing pathway dispute. It is a natural conduct for a family member to shout for help, when all the three members of the family, were brutally attacked with deadly weapons. Obviously, P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are closely related to the deceased's family and were residing only 100 feet away from the scene of occurrence, had rushed to the place of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 also corroborates with P.W.1 with regard to their conduct of rushing to the scene of occurrence and taking D2 and P.W.4 to the hospital thereafter. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 also corroborates with P.W.1 with regard to their conduct of rushing to the scene of occurrence and taking D2 and P.W.4 to the hospital thereafter. Thus, when the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are closely and cogently read along with the evidence of P.W.1, their evidences also inspire confidence, since it is cogent and convincing and thus, places both the accused at the scene of occurrence. 23. On an overall appraisal of all these evidences, we have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that it was both A1 and A2 who had committed the murders of D1 and D2 and had also attempted to commit the murder of P.W.4 by criminally trespassing into the lands of the deceased family. 24. We, however, find that while imposing the sentences, as detailed in the earlier part of this judgment, the Trial Court had also recorded that if the State considers any remission of sentence under Section 433 of Cr.P.C. in future, it had observed that the imprisonment shall not be less than 30 years. In the findings rendered by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, no justification has been given as to why there should be a pre-condition of 30 years of sentence for the purpose of remission. The maximum punishment of life imprisonment (2 counts) has already been imposed by the Trial Court for the offences committed. If that be so, the judgment, imposing a further restriction for claim of remission, would amount to a double punishment and hence, we are inclined to interfere with this portion of the judgment. 25. Accordingly, the judgment of the Trial Court in S.C.No.30 of 2017 dated 18.07.2019 is upheld and this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. However, the penultimate portion of the judgment, insofar as it reads as 'If the State will consider any remission of sentence under Section 433 of Cr.P.C. in future, imprisonment shall not be less than 30 years imprisonment.' , is set aside.