The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, made in S.C.No.40/2009 whereby the Accused/Appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 120-B, IPC and 302 r/w 34, IPC (2 counts) and awarded two years. Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 120B, IPC and life imprisonment (two counts) for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count, in default, to undergo six months’ Rigorous Imprisonment each for each count.

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

(a) The deceased Selvaraj and his wife Parvathi were the residents of Soorakuzhi Village, situate within the jurisdiction of the Respondent-Police; that both of them were doing brick work, that the First Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/- from one Ravi through the deceased Selvaraj; that when a demand was made, the First Accused did not repay the same and hence, there arose enmity between them; that the First Accused outraged the modesty of the deceased Selvaraj’s wife and equally, the deceased Selvaraj also attempted to outrage the modesty of the sister of the First Accused; that on that account, both were angry withy each other; that on 8.3.2009 at about 5.00 a.m., when both the deceases were going for brick work and while they were passing the cart pathway in the cashewnut field of one Thillaigovindan, both the Accused, armed with aruval, waylaid them, that A1 and A2 attacked the deceased Selvaraj and Parvath7y indiscriminately with aruval and caused cut injuries and both the deceased died instantaneously; that thereafter, the Appellants ran away from the place of occurrence; that P.Ws. 2 and 3 heard the distressing cry of the both the deceased and when they went nearby the place, they found the dead bodies of the deceased Selvaraj and Parvathi; that when P.W.4 was proceeding to his work at about 5.00 a.m. on 8.3.2009, he saw both the Accused along with the weapons of crime.

(b) P.W.1 gave a Complaint-Ex.P1 to P.W.14-Head Constable of the Respondent-Police. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.146/2009 under Section 302, IPC, 2 counts. The First Information Report Ex.P11 was sent to Court.

(C) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.3 and also drew a Rough Sketch-Ex.P14 in the presence of witnesses. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the first deceased Selvaraj and prepared the Inquest Report-Ex.P15 and thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the second deceased Parvathi and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.16 in the presence of witnesses.

(d) While the matter stood thus, both the Accused appeared before P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer and gave confessional statement on 9.3.2009 and the same was recorded, which was marked as Ex.P5 and on their production before the Investigator-P.W.17, the Accused gave confessional statement, pursuant to the confessional statement, they produced M.Os. 3 and 4-Aruvals and the same were recovered under a cover of mahazar and the appellants/Accused were sent for judicial remand. All the Material Objects were placed before the Court and they were subjected to analysis and Ex.P17-Serologist Report was received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the Accused, the prosecution examined 17 Witnesses and relied on 17 Exhibits and 8 Material Objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and they denied them as false. No defence witness was exam