The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.95 of 2007 whereby the first appellant/first accused was tried, stood charged and found guilty under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo one year RI and he was also found guilty under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo three months R.I. and the second accused found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo one year RI and she was also found guilty under Section 201 read with 109 IPC and sentencing her to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo three months R.I. with the further direction to run the sentences concurrently by each accused.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

a) P.W.1 along with his wife who was examined as DW1 and mother A2 was living at Lalakottai Krishnapuram Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. While they had three female children, the wife of A1 gave birth to fourth child which was also happened to be a female child and hence A1 and A2 decided to do away with the child and accordingly they administered poison and as a result the child died. In order to screen the offence, they buried the dead body in the land in S.No.437/16. Suspicion was enterta ined by the neighbours.

b) PW1, the Villge Administrative Officer of the said place was informed by his assistant about the suspicion entertained by the villagers. PW1 informed to the Tahsildar and thereafter he gave a complaint to PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mathinkonpalayam which is marked as Ex.P.1 and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.229 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The Printed FIR Ex.P.13 was despatched to the Court and copies were actually served upon the Tahsildar and also PW11, the Inspector of Police of the Circle.

c) PW11, on receipt of the FIR, proceeded to the spot and PW1 was also present in the place of occurrence. In the presence of the witnesses, the body was exhumed and inquest was conducted by the Tahsildar which was marked as Ex.P4. The body of the child was sent for postmortem.

d) P.W.6, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the requisition from the Tahsildar, has conducted post-mortem on the body of the child and has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died 3 to 5 days prior to autopsy due to organo phosphorous insecticide poison.

e) A requisition was sent by the Tahsildar to send the viscera for chemical Analysis. A requisition was sent by PW11, the Inspector of Police to the Judicial Magistrate concerned for sending material objects which is marked as Ex.P.14. Then he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and drew Rough Sketch Ex.P.15. The witnesses were examined and on the intimation given by the Judicial Magistrate to the Tahsildar, the Section was altered into one under Section 302 IPC and the Express FIR Ex.P.16 was despatched to Court. The accused were arrested. The first accused gave a confessional statement voluntarily which is marked as EX.P.6. Pursuant to the confession,the first accused produced M.O.1, a plastic containing with screw type lid containing a few drops of brown colour liquid and M.O.2 a stainless steel paladai" of the child. It was recovered under the cover of Mahazar. Ex.P.9 is the Bone Case report, Ex.P.10 is the Viscera Report and Ex.P.12 is the Chemical Analyst Report. On completion of investigation, the investigator filed final report.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the cha