To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, out of whom, P.Ws 2 and 3 turned hostile.P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.I while P.w.3 is a local village leader.Her evidence would show that she, along with her husband, was inside the house on the day of occurrence, at that time, both the deceased were sleeping inside the house in the verandah while P.Ws 1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house on the southern portion.During the occurrence time, she heard the murmuring noise of her father and mother and when she and her husband woke up, they saw the accused attacking D-l first on his head, neck, shoulder and other parts and the body.On seeing D-l being attacked, D-2 stepped in and she was also not spared by the accused, who cut her indiscriminately.The witnesses shouted and on hearing their shout, P.W.3 also came there.The accused ran away with the weapon of offence in his hand.Thereafter, P.W.1, along with others, went to the Police Station, where she gave an oral complaint before P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who reduced the same into writing.The said complaint is Ex.P.W.10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who speaks about P.W.1 appearing before him at 4 a.m. on 6.10.94 and giving a complaint, which he registered as Ex.Pl in his Police Station Crime No. 132/94 for an offence under Section 302, IPC.Ex-P13 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him and he sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.12 is the police constable, who carried the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.The material records were handed over by him in Court at 5.15 a.m. on the same day.P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer, who, on receipt of information over wireless at 4.30 a.m. on 6.10.94 from P.W.10, directed him to bring the material records to the scheme of occurrence, where he reached by 6 a.m. On collecting the material records, he commenced the investigation.In the presence of P.W.4 and another, he prepared Ex.P2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P20, the rough sketch.Between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-l in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses.During inquest, he examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements.Then, he sent the dead body of D-l for.From 10 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. on the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 in the presence of the same panchayatars and prepared Ex.-P22, the Inquest Report in regard thereto.During the said inquest, he read out the statements recorded from the aforesaid witnesses.Through police constable P.W.14, he sent the dead body of D-2 for postmortem.He gave one requisition for each postmortem.After postmortem, P.W.13 removed M.O.9 - lungi from the dead body of D-l and handed over the same under Form 95 - Ex.P19 to the Investigating Officer.P.W.8 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-1 on receipt of Ex-P9 requisition.He commenced postmortem at l0.am.on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P10, the postmortem report.Form the place where the dead body of D-l was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat, a bloodstained towel, a bloodstained brick and a sample brick at 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 under a valid mahazar.At 12.45 p.m., from the place where the dead body of D-2 was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat and three bloodstained bricks in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar.He arrested the accused at 4 a.m. on 9.10.94 in the presence of P.W.6 and another.For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and for the latter offence, on each count, he was sentenced to undergo 14 years Rl.The sentence imposed on each count of murder was directed to run consecutively.Finding that the sentence of 14 years RI imposed for the offence of murder, on each count is illegal, we caused notice to be issued to the appellant as to why, if the Court ultimately agrees with the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge on that offence, the sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court should not be enhanced to fit in with the sentence prescribed by law.Notice was served on the accused in prison and he sent a written response stating that the offence complained of could not be under Section 302, IPC but only under Section 304(III) ,IPC (probably, an error for 304(II), IPC) and therefore, he must be taken out of the rigour of Section 302, IPC.A set of material papers was handed over to the learned counsel in Court itself and the learned counsel submitted that if the appeal is taken up for hearing today, he would be in a position to argue the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal is heard by hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The case of the prosecution is that annoyed over the illicit intimacy of his wife with one Shanmuganathan, the accused, on 6.10.1994, at 01.00 hrs, trespassed into the house of the said Shanmuganathan and committed his murder and in the course of the same transaction, when Leelavathi, wife of Shanmuganathan attempted to intervene, she was also stabbed to death.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died about 32-36 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to vital organs (spinal cord) and due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.P.W.9 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 on receipt of Ex-P11 requisition.She commenced postmortem at 12.15 p.m. on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex-P12, the postmortem certificate.P.W.I5 continued the investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.Pursuant to Ex-P8, M.Os 7 and 8 came to be recovered under Ex-P7 attested by witnesses.P.W.5 is the photographer, who took photographs of the scene of occurrence on the direction of the Police Officer.M.O.5 series and M.O.6 series are the photographs and the negatives.P.W.15 sent the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.Exs-Pl6 and P17 are the Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologist's Report respectively.After completing the investigation, P.W.15 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 13.10.94 for offences under Section 302, IPC (2 counts) and Section 449, IPC.Neither documentary nor oral evidence was brought before Court at his instance.Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon the history of the case attached to Ex.The learned counsel, by taking us through the oral evidence of P.W.I, requested us to disbelieve it.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points.All the charges namely, charge No. l for the offence under Section 449, IPC, charge No. 2 for the offence under Section 302, IPC had been read over to the accused and he pleaded guilty to all the charges.It is not as though the accused went back on his plea of guilt referred to above and we find, in fact, that the had admitted his involvement in the crime when he was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Question No. 2 put to him at the time of his questioning under Section 313 of the Code is based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 as an eye-witness to the occurrence and the accused had admitted her evidence before Court as true.In his answer to question No. 4 relating to the oral evidence of P.W.3, the accused had admitted that the house of D-l is next to his and that after cutting, he ran away.Question No. 19 put to the accused is the oral evidence of P.W.6 regarding the arrest of the accused; recording his confession statement and recovery of M.O.s 7 and 8 under Ex-P7 and the accused had affirmed it as true.Therefore, there are enough materials on record to show that the accused had not disputed his involvement in the crime.Her oral evidence is crisp and clear about the involvement of the accused tin perpetrating the crime on her parents resulting in their death.No material worth mentioning is available in her evidence, which would discredit her evidence in chief examination regarding the occurrence proper.The cause of death of both the deceased is shown to be due to homicidal violence and the medical evidence in regard to the same is that of P.W.8, who did postmortem on the body of D-l and P.W.9, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 coupled with Exs-P10 and P12, the respective postmortem certificates.Therefore, the above referred to materials, leave no room at all to doubt the case of the prosecution holding the accused responsible for causing the death of Shanmuganathan and Leelavathi in this case.It may be true that the history of the case attached to Ex-P9 would show that the accused was annoyed over his wife having an illicit intimacy with D-l.But, we find from the other materials on record that the accused had not taken any stand based on such illicit intimacy of his wife with D-l.Therefore, looking from any angle, the conviction of the accused/appellant for committing the murder of D-2 cannot be set aside.As already referred to above, except the history of the case attached to Ex-P9, there is no other material to show that D-l was having an illicit affair with the wife of the accused, which constituted the source for his sustained provocation due to which he had acted in the manner as brought to the notice of the Court.Let us now apply our mind to the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence of murder on 2 counts.But, we find that the learned Sessions Judge, while finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC on both the counts, was inclined to sentence him to 14 years, RI on each count and also gave a further direction that the said sentences would run consecutively.We also though very carefully as to whether we would be committing any illegality in taking up the appeal ourselves after having issued notice for enhancement of punishment.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code