He directed that all the sentences should run companycurrently.
In the examination in chief the doctor had opined that the death of the deceased might have been caused within a period of 16 24 hours before the post mortem.
It is also stated by the prosecution that on 17.12.1990 the appellant went to the village Mettukkadai and met the VAO of that village by name Chinnasamy at about 8 a.m. and told him that he had companymitted the murder of the deceased persons at their village and since he apprehended that if he went to the Police by himself, he would be tortured.
It is the case of the prosecution that since then the appellant entertained a grudge against D 1 and was off and on telling people that because of the deceased persons, his family had been ruined.
He stated that he, his companysin Palanisamy, PW 2 and number examined witness Rengasamy then chased the appellant but he fled from the scene.
About 15 years prior to the incident in question, one of the sons of deceased D 1, namely, Muthusamy and another friend of his also known as Muthusamy Kidakarar son of Chinnappa Gounder had raped the said Sarasu.
His family members were agricultural labourers.
The further case of the prosecution is that thereafter about 2 years prior to the date of the incident, the said Saraswati again came back to the village alone and when D 1 came to know of the same, he called the appellant and warned him that if Sarasu has allowed to stay in the village, he would arrange for a boycott of the family by other villagers, therefore, he directed the appellant to take Sarasu away from the village because of which Sarasu had to go away.
In regard to this incident, a Panchayat was called and there was a suggestion that either of the persons involved in the said rape incident should marry the said Sarasu which was number agreed to by D 1 and the latter had threatened the family of the appellant to banish the said Sarasu from the village because of her bad character.
Thereafter when he came back to the spot of the incident, he found both his father and uncle dead.
P 1 and read the same over to PW 1 and obtained his signatures.
He requested PW 12 to take him to the Police Station and hand him over.
On being enquired about D 1, he was told by these 3 persons that both his father and their father had gone near the cattle shed, therefore, even though he had numberspecific work as such with his father instead of spending time with PW 2 and others, he went to meet his father near the cattle shed.
The appellants family being helpless, had to send her away to Madras where she lived for sometime and about 4 years before the date of the incident, she had companye back to the village along with another person whom she claimed to have married and on companying to know of the said incident of rape, her husband is supposed to have taken her away to a place called Karaikudi.
The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and bleeding caused by the said injuries on the bodies of the deceased.
P 17 and sent the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate and other higher officials by which time PW 14, the Inspector of Police at the said Police Station came to the Station and took over the investigation.
The prosecution states that after seeing his father and uncle dead, PW 1 went to the residence of PW 11 V.K. Subramaniam who was the Village Administrative Officer VAO and narrated the incident to him who recorded the statement of PW 1 as per Ex.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused volunteered an extra judicial companyfession of his assault on the deceased to these two persons, namely, PW 3 and Papayee and thereafter he ran further away.
The post mortem report of the doctor was marked as Ex.
Learned Sessions Judge, Periyar District, after trial, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has established that the appellant had companymitted the said murders, hence, found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 on two companynts and companyvicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment on each of the said companynt and further held him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and companyvicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year.
On reaching the village, PW 14 companyducted the inquest and recorded the statement of PWs.1 and 2 and some others.
He found another cut injury on the left hand of the deceased.
He seized some blood stained articles, sent some of them to the Chemical Examiner and arranged for the bodies of the deceased to be sent for post mortem.
PW 5, the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination found 3 injuries on the body of D 1 out of which injury No.3 had almost severed the neck of the deceased and was hanging by the front skin of the neck.
With this incident in the background, according to the prosecution, the appellant wanted to take vengeance upon the deceased persons, hence, on 16.12.1990 at about 1.30 p.m. when the two deceased persons were working on a piece of land near about their house, he attacked them with a sickle, companysequent upon which both the deceased died on the spot.
The said injury had cut the head which was hanging from the jaw bone and the skin on that part.
Thereafter, PW 11 is alleged to have inspected the place of the incident and companyfirmed the statement of PW 1 to be companyrect and went to Erode Taluk Police Station along with PW 1 and submitted Ex.
Thereafter it is stated by this witness that he again cut his father D 1 in the neck.
PW 13, the Sub Inspector then prepared an FIR in the printed form in Ex.
It is stated that this incident was witnessed by PW 1 who is son of D 1, PW 2, Palanisamy, son of D 2, one Thulasi Ammal, wife of PW 2 and Rengasamy son of D 2.
Though he shouted at the appellant number to cut, the appellant proceeded to inflict 2 cuts on D 2 on the back side of his neck.
According to this witness, when he went near the place of the incident, he saw the accused first cut his fathers head at the back of his neck forcibly with a sickle.
It is stated that the accused had 2 brothers and 2 sisters out of which Saraswathi also known as Sarasu, the elder sister, was doing the work of agricultural labourer.
The appeal of the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras being unsuccessful, the appellant is before us in this criminal appeal.
P 1 at about 4 p.m. to the Sub Inspector PW 13 along with a special report of PW 11.
It is stated that PW 14 along with his other staff proceeded to the place of the incident.
At the same time he threatened this witness number to go near him or else he would cut him also.
The prosecution case, stated briefly, is as follows The family of the accused was originally staying in a village called Velayuthampalayam and moved about 25 years before the date of the incident from the said village to Thottanichatram.
PW 1 and PW 11 which is about 13 miles away from the Police Station.
The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant after the attack took to his heels with the blood stained sickle in his hand.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant abovenamed was chargesheeted by Erode Taluk Police Station for an offence under Section 302 IPC on two companynts and Section 506 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Erode, for having companymitted the murders of Arisikarar alias Nachimuthu D 1 and Beedikarar alias Nachimuthu Gounder D 2 due to previous enmity and for further having threatened certain others who tried to intervene in the incident which led to the death of D 1 and D 2.
