Judicial confession made by accused if retracted later on does not lose its value.

Arunachalam, J.

This is a case of double murder, in which the sole appellant, Raja, faced his trial in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1988, before the learned Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore. Two charges were framed against the appellant, one in respect of each of the deceased, under Sec.302, I.P.C. The allegations in the charges are that on the night of 30/38. 1987, at or about 2.00 a.m. in the front yard of his house at Keezhakuppam Village, appellant did commit the murder of his wife Chinna Pillai, by cutting her with an axe on her head and right fore-arm and in the course of the same transaction, he did commit the murder of his four year old daughter, Gunasundari, by cutting her with an axe on her head, abdomen and other parts of the body, leading to instantaneous deaths of both of them. Hereinafter, we shall refer to Chinna Pillai as D-1 and Gunasundari as D-2. On termination of trial, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of murder (two counts) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under each count. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. Let us now state the case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the evidence brought on record. D-1 was married to the appellant in or about 1984 and they had two male children and one female, born on the said marriage. Appellant, after getting himself intoxicated, was in the habit of constantly fighting with his wife, which, in turn, led to the latter seeking refuge in the house of her elder brother, P.W.6 Ramanujam. A few days later on every occasion, appellant would proceed to the house of the parents of D-1 and get her back, naturally, after pacification. Approximately about six months prior to occurrence, as a result of one of the boots of quarrel between the spouses, D-1 went away to her parental house and at or about that time, appellant, who was angered and aggrieved, almost planned, to put an end to the life of his wife. On the evening prior to occurrence night, at 6.00 p.m., D.1 arrived at her residence, after attending a marriage. Two hours thereafter she went along with her children to the residence of P.W.5, Devarajan a neighbour. P.W.2, Ratnavel and P.W.3, Manickavel, are her sons, While D-2 is her daughter. D-1 was engaged in conversation with P.W.5. At or about that time, appellant came over to the house of P.W.5 and called D-1 to come home and feed him. D-1 refused and added that the appellant could go home and himself serve and eat his food. At or about 10.00 p.m. on the same night D-1, D-2, P.W.2 and P.W.3 returned to their residence, since they were feeling sleepy.

3. P.W.4, Rajakannu, is another neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. P.W.6 Ramanujam elder brother of D-1 has spoken about the motive and similarly, P.W.5 has also deposed on that aspect of the prosecution case. After D-1 and her children left his house, P.W.5 took his bed outside his house. Similarly, D-1 and D-2 spread a mat in the front yard of their house and went to bed. Nearby, on a sack, M.O.3, P.Ws.2 and 3 laid themselves down in the night. Around 2.00 a.m. P.W.3 the juvenile son of D-1 suddenly felt, as though he was pinched. When he woke up, he noticed the appellant removing the axe from the head portion of his mother, D-1. He and P.W.2 shouted, that their father had murdered D-1 and D-2 and rushed towards the residence of P.W.5. M.O.4, a tin lantern, kept on the head side of the deceased, was then burning. On hearing the hue and cry of P.Ws.2 and 3, P.Ws.4 and 5 rushed towards the scene. Both of them saw the appellant throwing the axe at the spot of crime, before running inside his house. They also found out injuries on the head, hand, back etc., of both the deceased. Intestines of D-2 had come out. P.Ws.4 and 5 arranged for a lantern and when they came back, they found, that the appellant had escaped. There was profuse blood soaking on the clothes of the victims, the mat and the sack.

4. At or about 5.00 a