Shortly stated, the prosecution story is as under:-- The accused Natarajan is a resident of South Karasery where he was living with his family.About six months prior to 4-3-1995, his mother-in-law Gomathiammal was residing with the accused.Adjacent to the house of the accused in the village, is the house of PW-1 Madathiammal, who was running a petty shop in the said house and her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal also were residing in the said house.It is the prosecution's case that the accused had strained relationship with his mother-in-law as his mother-in-law used to nag the accused.There often used to be quarrels between the accused and his mother-in-law as the mother-in-law used to insist the accused for working and earning something for the family.It is the prosecution case that on 4-3-1995 at about 6 O' Clock in the evening, when she was standing in the front side of the house in her petty shop, when her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal were standing in the courtyard of the back side of the house, she saw the accused chasing his mother-in-law, who was running.The accused was armed with a sickle.Gomathiammal jumped over the mud-wall in between the house of PW-1 Madathiammal and the accused and fell on her face near the courtyard of the house of the witneSections At that time, the accused dealt with sickle blows on his mother-in-law on her back.Seeing this, Shanmughavadivu shouted as to why he was assaulting the mother-in-law.The accused is said to have then assaulted Shanmughavadivu and dealt with sickle blows on her shoulder, below her chest and on her chest.Seeing this, PW-2 Mariammal also shouted as to why the accused was cutting her grand-mother.The accused thereafter came running and dealt with sickle, blows on Mariammal also on her left shoulder, neck, right shoulder and nape.Seeing this, when PW-1 Madathiammal asked the accused as to why he was assaulting her daughter, the accused dealt with sickle blows on Madathiammal on her neck, right shoulder and left forearm.Thereafter, the accused ran away with the sickle.The two ladies viz., Gomathi Ammal and Shanmughavadivu died on the spot.A car was hired by one Lakshmiammal and Arumughathammal and the two injured witnesses viz., Madathiammal and Mariammal were taken to Palayamkottai High Ground Hospital for treatment.On receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Seithunganallur Police Station came there and recorded a statement of Madathiammal, in which she narrated the whole story.This statement is treated by the prosecution as the First Information Report.The investigation was started on the basis of this First Information Report by the Police.It seems that the Investigating Officer Chinnaiah, who was then on duty as Inspector of Police, Law and Order, in the Central Police Station, Tuticorin, had received this information.He, therefore, came to Seithunganallur Police Station at 11.45 p.m. and after receiving the copy of the First Information Report, which was recorded by PW-14 Thiru, Kandasamy, first went to the Hospital and after interrogating the two injured witnessees and recording their statements, he then proceeded to the spot of occurrence in the same night.The inquest was conducted over the dead bodies of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu.The bodies were then sent for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam through Constable Sivakumar.The Investigating Offices then recorded the statements of other witnesses.The accused was arrested on 6-3-1995 at about 8.30 a.m. near Kalvoi Road.He was arrested in the presence of Chlthiraj and Ganesan.On his being asked, he agreed to discover the sickle used in committing the crime.The accused then took the Investigating Officer and discovered the sickle which was kept hidden at the western side wall of the terraced roof of Muppidathi Amman koil which is situated on the western side of Karunkulam-Moolakaraipatti road.JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Referred Trial No. 1 of 1999 is a reference by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for confirmation under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code of the death sentence passed against the accused Natarajan.He has been awarded the sentence of death as the Sessions Judge, Tuticorin has found him guilty of the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts as also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1999 has been filed by the accused against the finding of the conviction.The accused was then remanded to the judicial custody.The Investigating Officer later on seized the blood-stained clothes of the eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and sent all the materials to the Court.He gave a requisition to the Court for sending M.O. 1 to M.O. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical examination.On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.Charge was framed against the accused firstly, for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Gomathiammal and on second count, again for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Shanmughavadivu, so also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts for having attempted to commit murder of Madathiammal and Mariammal.The accused abjured guilt.Prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, PW-1 Madathiammal, PW-2 Mariammal and PW-3 Sappanimuthu, out of whom PW-3 Sappanimuthu turned hostile, while the other two supported the prosecution PW-4 Lakshmi Ammal is a person, who took the injured in a Car to the Hospital.PW-5 Pechimuthu and PW-6 Chithiraj are the Panchayatdar witnesses on mahazar as well as on the discovery statements.PW-6 Chithiraj has turned hostile.PW-7 Jayakumar and PW-8 Ramasamy are the Doctors.Dr. Jayakumar conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Shanmughavadivu and found four injuries on her person which was ante-mortem injuries, while the body of Gomathiammal had as many as eight incised injuries.The Doctor described the injuries to be sufficient in the ordinary course of time to cause death and also pin-pointed the said injuries.Dr. Ramasamy has proved the Injury Certificates, which he had issued after he had treated PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal.He found as many as three incised injuries on the person of Madathiammal PW-1 out of which he described Injury No. 1 to be the grievous injury as per X-Ray photographs.He also found four incised injuries on the person of Mariammal and he issued the Injury Certificate where wound Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature as per the X-Ray.Prosecution also relied on the evidence of Dr. Duraipandian, PW-9 who examined the X-Ray photographs to prove the fractures on the persons of Mariammal and Madathiammal.PW-12 Mr. Mayandi, who was formerly Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikuntam, sent Exm. M. 1 to M. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical analysis along with Ex. P-20, which was a requisition letter.Ex. P-21 is the report of the Chemical Analyst, while Ex. P-22 is the Serologist's report, PW-14 Kandasamy proved the First Information Report, while PW-15 Chinnayya deposed about the Investigation.The defence of the accused was extremely faulty.It was tried to be suggested that there was some altercation among the Villagers and there was an incident of stone throwing because of which, the two ladies were injured and lost their lives and the two other ladies were injured.The accused went on, however, to accept the guilt at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses.He held that their presence at the spot to be absolutely natural.He also held that there was absolutely no reason for the two witnesses PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal to depose falsely.He also accepted the medical evidence and the other incriminating evidence like the bloodstained articles and convicted the accused treating this to be the rarest of rare case.He has also chosen to award death sentence against the accused.On this factual backdrop, it has to be seen as to whether firstly, the accused can be held guilty for the offences charged with and secondly, whether this is a case where the death sentence awarded to the accused can be confirmed under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.There can be no dispute in this case that the death of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu was homicidal.The presence of fatal injuries on the persons of both and the evidence of Dr. Jayakumar (PW-7) would be sufficient to hold that the two ladies, who did not have any injuries prior to the incident, died due to homicidal violence because of the injuries.The death of the two ladies, therefore, can be safely inferred to be homicidal death.The evidence in this case is both ocular and circumstantial in nature.In so far as the evidence of PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal are concerned, both the witnesses have specifically stated about the active role played by the accused in bringing about the death of the two unfortunate ladies as also in assaulting themselves.The presence of both the witnesses was most natural at the spot as the incident had taken place in the courtyard of their house itself.There is absolutely no cross-examination to any of the witnesses more particularly to these two eye-witnesses as also the Investigating Officer regarding the topography of the scene.Considering the fact that the incident took place at 6 O' Clock in the evening would also go to show that their presence in the house would be natural.Both these witnesses have given a graphic description of the incident.According to both the witnesses, there used to be quarrels between the accused Natarajan and his mother-in-law, who had come to live with the accused since about six months prior to the incident.PW-1 Madathiammal then goes to describe the whole incident to the effect that the accused was quarrelling with his mother-in-law and then the mother-in-law was chased by the accused.At that time, the mother-in-law tried to jump over the small mud-wall, but tripped over the fire-wood and fell down on her face, when accused Natarajan started dealing blows with the sickle on her back.When we see the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal, there is enough corroboration to this version as the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal are mainly on the back side "f her body.Barring these three injuries, all the other five injuries are on the back side of the body.The other injuries are on the left shoulder, left side neck and left forearm.This gives a corroboration to the version of Madathiammal PW-1 as also Mariammal PW-2, PW-2 had also stated that the deceased Gomathiammal fell on her face and the accused dealt with the sickle blows on her back.In fact, there is practically no discrepancy in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses.They have also given a clear account of the assault on the mother of PW-1 Shanmughavadivu and thereafter, the assault firstly on Mariammal (PW-2) and secondly on Madathiammal (PW-1).Both the witnesses have suffered the injuries which have been amply proved by PW-8 Dr. Ramasamy, Considering the depth and nature of all the injuries, which were incised wounds, they were possible by use of sickle.The medical opinion expressed about the same.There can be no doubt that the two eye-witnesses were not only present on the spot, but they had seen the whole incident and their evidence is corroborated by each other as also by the injuries suffered by them.The cross-examination of these two witnesses is absolutely purposeleSections In fact, some portion of the cross-examination is irrelevant and we wonder as to why the learned Sessions Judge allowed such irrelevant questions to be put.It was tried to be established by the defence that one Pechimuthu had come along with the injured persons to the Hospital and the witness PW-1 has accepted this.It is also suggested that the said Pechimuthu, Lakshmi Ammal and Arumughathammal were with the injured persons in the Hospital till 6.00 p.m. in the evening on the next day.One fails to understand any relevancy of this cross-examination.It is tried to be suggested to PW-1 Madathiammal that she and the brother of the accused were competitors in the busineSections Some irrelevant questions regarding the witness and her mother were put to PW-1 which have absolutely no bearing on the present prosecution.A wild suggestion was thrown at her that her brother used to bring illicit liquor and sell the same in the village.Another wild suggestion was thrown at the witness that there was a riot in which the shop and the bench were broken and in that, stones and sticks were thrown and it is because of that, the witness PW-1 and her daughter were injured.In short, nothing could be elucidated from PW-1 in the cross-examination and her evidence remained unshaken.She has graphically supported the version of her mother.In cross-examination also, there is nothing worth the name.The learned Counsel pointed out that while PW-1 stated that she was taken to the Hospital in a Car, this witness had admitted that she went to the Hospital in the Police Jeep.The same theory of riot was suggested by even this witness which was denied by the witness (PW-1).In short, the evidence of this witness also remained totally unshaken.The third witness, who sought to be examined as the eye-witness, is.PW-3 Sappanimuthu.He has turned hostile and, therefore, his evidence cannot be considered.Thus, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses have remained unshaken and their evidence can be safely accepted.As if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is insufficient, there is also the other corroborating evidence which has already been referred to above.The fact that both the witness have also stated that the accused was shouting at her mother-in-law and saying that only if she was finished, there will be tranquillity in his house has also not been demolished.In the cross-examination, which would amply go to prove the intention on the part of the accused and his complicity in the evidence.It was tried to be suggested that PW-1 could not have been seen the occurrence when she was standing in the shop.However, even that cannot be accepted for the simple reason that according to PW-1, she was standing in front of her shop.Again it is not established by cross-examination of any witness that a person who is standing in the shop cannot see the incident in the back courtyard of the house.Some advantage was tried to be taken by the learned Counsel by suggesting that there were some contradictions.However, the said contradictions have not even been proved in the evidence and they are extremely insignificant.The contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 about the vehicle in which they went to the hospital is also, to say the least, insignificant, because that pertains what happened after the incident.It cannot be again forgotten that in this case, while the incident has taken place at 6 O'Clock in the evening, the First Information Report has been made almost immediately.PW-1, after being injured, was taken to the Hospital and it was there that she gave her statement.Therefore, there is no question of any belated First Information Report.In the First Information Report also, she has given a complete description of the incident.Her evidence is, therefore, corroborated by the First Information Report.The most important factor to be appreciated in respect of the evidence of these two witnesses is that they are the injured witnesses and that they suffered the injuries at the hands of the accused in broad day light.Last but not the least that these two witnesses had no reason whatsoever to speak against the accused.The defence has not been able to establish any enmity between the accused and the witnesses.Though faintly it was suggested that there was business rivalry between the brother of the accused and PW- 1 Madathiammal, it is really not necessary for the witnesses to speak falsely regarding their injuries at the hands of the accused as also the injuries of the mother-in-law and the injuries of Shanmughavadivu.In short, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 alone is sufficient to fix the guilt on the accused for offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.the said two ladies have suffered extensive wounds.Both the ladies have suffered grievous wounds as per the evidence of Dr. Ramasamy (PW-8).In his evidence, the Doctor Ramasamy has deposed that the injuries were grievous.They were also placed on the vital parts of the body.There would be, therefore, no question of any other intention in the mind of the accused except to cause the death of the two witnesses.It seems, it is only their providence which saved the two witnesses apart from the fact that they have got immediate medical help.The placement of injuries, the manner in which the injuries were dealt with, the nature of the weapon, would amply go to suggest that the accused had intended the death of the two witnesses also.Under such circumstances, the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 307, I.P.C. would also be suggesting.In short, nothing could be said as against the conviction of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on two counts and under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.The learned Sessions Judge has not bothered to probe into the whole case, the psychology of the accused in the attending circumstances and the other mitigating circumstances while branding this case as the rarest of rare case.The treatment given to this subject is extremely sketchy.The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that this cannot be said to be a rarest of rare case even if there have been two murders and attempt to murder the two witnesses who were eyer witnesses.It seems from the evidence of these two witnesses that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law who, probably, was an unwanted guest for more than six months in the house of the accused.It is in the evidence of PW-1 that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law and the accused, as the mother-in-law created a hindrance in getting food.Both the witnesses have specifically referred to the prior quarrel between the accused and the deceased Gomathiammal on that day.It has not come on record as to whether the accused refused to go for work on his own.A possibility of not being able to get the work could also not be ruled out.If the accused, who was already burdened with his mother-in-law, found that in his own house, he was being insulted and food being refused to him at the instance of the mother-in-law, it is obvious that the rebukes given by his mother-in-law added insult to injury.He had ample opportunity to finish off his mother-in-law, who was the resident in the same house.When he was on bail, he attacked the family members of the victim in the earlier case.He was armed with axe and his brother was armed with dagger.There should have been more consideration shown to this aspect in his judgment.The sentence passed for the offences under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts and other directions regarding the same would remain undisturbed.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code