Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Shankar Lal Rai vs Shukl Prasad on 28 June, 2018
1
Cr.A.No. 1271/2015
Cr.R. No.1544/2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1271/2015
1. Shuklaa Prasad Shivhare,
S/o Shankarlal Shivhare,
aged about 63 years, resident
of Salichowka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
2. Smt. Bharti Rai,
W/o Mukesh Rai,
aged about 30 years, resident
of Salichowka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
3. Bharat Shivhare,
S/o Shri Shukla Prasad Shivhare,
aged about 33 years, resident
of Salichowka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
4. Smt. Munni Devi Shivhare,
W/o Shri Shukla Prasad Shivhare,
aged about 62 years, resident
of Salichowka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.) Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh through
Police Station, Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur (M.P.)
Respondent/State
2
Cr.A.No. 1271/2015
Cr.R. No.1544/2015
Criminal Revision No.1544/2015
1. Shri Shankar Lal Rai, aged 66
years, Son of Late Shri Khoob
Chand Rai, Resident of 311,
Gandhi Vyayamshala,Ranjhi
Bazar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
Petitioner
Versus
1. Shuklaa Prasad aged 63 years,
S/o Shri Shankar Lal Shivhare,
Resident of Salichoka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
2. Bharti Rai, aged 30 years
W/o Shri Mukesh Rai,Salichoka,
Police Station,Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
3. Bharat Shivhare,
S/o Shri Shukla Prasad Shivhare,
aged about 33 years, resident
of Salichowka, Police
Station, Gadarwara,
District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
4. Munni Devi Shivhare,
W/o Shukla Prasad Shivhare,
aged about 62 years, resident
of Salichowka, PoliceStation,
Gadarwara,District-Narsinghpur (M.P.)
5. State of Madhya Pradesh
through Arakshi Kendra Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur (M.P.)
Respondents
..................................................................................................................
Present:- Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
................................................................................................................
3
Cr.A.No. 1271/2015
Cr.R. No.1544/2015
Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No.1271/2015.
None for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision
No.1544/2015.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(28-06-2018)
1. Since, Criminal Appeal No.1271/2015 and Criminal Revision No.1544/2015 have arisen from the same judgment, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.1271/2015 against conviction and sentence filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellants/accused persons Shukla Prasad Shivhare, Bharti Rai, Bharat Shivhare and Munni Devi Shivhare, is directed against judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District-Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.183/2009; whereby, aforesaid accused persons were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.
2. Criminal Revision No.1544/2015 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Shankar Lal Rai, father of deceased Mukesh Rai for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the aforesaid accused persons.
4 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/20153. The prosecution case before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Mukesh had married accused Bharti on 24.05.2001. Ever since the marriage, the behavior of accused Bharti with deceased Mukesh and his family members, was not good. She used to pressurize Mukesh for living separately. She lived with him for only about 85 days after the marriage; thereafter, she quarreled with the deceased and returned to her maternal home. She has been living at her maternal home since 06.01.2002. The Couple had a daughter, who was born on 19.05.2002. Thereafter, concerted efforts were made by Mukesh and his family members to bring Bharti to her matrimonial home; however, they failed. The accused misbehaved with the family members of the deceased and declined to return.
It is also the case of the prosecution that subsequently accused Bharti had filed a case against the deceased and his family members for dowry harassment; however, in that case deceased Mukesh and his family members were acquitted. Accused Bharti had filed another case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance, in which deceased Mukesh was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance to Bharti and her daughter.
4. On 03.12.2007, deceased Mukesh had gone from Jabalpur to Gadarwara to attend hearing of the case instituted for execution of maintenance order in the Court of Shri Ajay Singh Thakur, Judicial Magistrate First Class. He was accompanied by his friend Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and maternal uncle (Mama) Rajkumar (PW-8). On that date, Bharti and Mukesh appeared 5 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 before the Court. After about 10-15 minutes, deceased Mukesh came out and disclosed to Kanhaiyalal and Rajkumar that the Magistrate has directed that the entire amount of maintenance is to be deposited. Thereafter, Bharti's father accused Shukla Prasad, her brother Bharat and her mother Munni Devi came. They beat the deceased. Bharti and Munni Devi beat the deceased by slippers. Thereafter, Kanhaiyalal and Rajkumar intercepted on behalf of Mukesh. He was rescued. After that, Mukesh asked his maternal uncle Rajkumar to arrange for the funds; whereon, Rajkumar left. However, when he did not return for a period of about an hour, deceased Mukesh went to look for him. Later his dead body was found on the Railway track. The suicide note (Ex.P/3) was seized from his pocket, which held persecution and harassment by his wife and his in- laws (present appellants) responsible for his suicide. During investigation, the Examiner of Questioned Documents found that the handwriting and signatures on the suicide note matched with the other documents written by the deceased. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
5. The accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Accused Bharti, the wife of deceased, stated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the date of the offence, deceased Mukesh had attended the hearing in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gadarwara. He was required to pay Rs.25-30,000/- by way of arrears of maintenance allowance to accused Bharti and her daughter. The Court had asked the deceased to deposit the arrears of maintenance allowance and warned that otherwise he would be 6 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 sent to Civil Jail. Thereafter, the deceased had left the Court telling the Court that he will arrange the amount. Later she learnt that the deceased had died. Her father Shukla Prasad, brother Bharat and mother Munni Devi have stated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they have been falsely implicated in the case simply because they are related to Bharti.
6. After the trial, trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had harassed and persecuted the deceased. Accused Bharti had also instituted a false case of dowry harassment against him. The deceased and his father were acquitted in that case. On the date of the offence, the accused persons together had beaten the deceased outside the Court. Due to aforesaid persistent harassment and the public beating given by the accused persons to the deceased in the Court premises, he was severely stressed and was left with no option but to commit suicide. Consequently, he committed suicide by lying on Railway track under a running train. The suicide note (Ex.P/3) was seized from his pocket. It was found to have been written by the deceased. It squarely blamed the accused persons for commission of suicide by the deceased. Consequently, accused persons were convicted and sentenced as hereinabove stated.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court on several counts. It has been contended that:
(i) The trial Court erred in holding that Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and Rajkumar (PW-8) were present on the spot;7 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015
(ii) It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had given beating to the deceased prior to his death;
(iii) The doctor conducting post-mortem examination upon the deceased has admitted that the death of the deceased could have been accidental;
(iv) The dying declaration (Ex.P/3) was not properly seized and sent for examination by the Examiner of Questioned Documents;
(v) The report of the Examiner of Questioned Documents is not reliable;
(vi) It has not been duly proved that the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased;
(vii) Accused Bharti was estranged wife of the deceased;
therefore, she was entitled to take recourse to law for assertion and her rights as a deserted wife;
(viii) In her assertion of right to maintenance she had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed;
(ix) The deceased had failed to pay arrears of maintenance allowance running into approximately Rs.25-30,000/-;
(x) On the date of the incident, the trial Court had insisted the deceased to deposit the amount;
(xi) The trial Court had also warned the deceased that in case he failed to deposit the amount on that date, he would be sent to Civil Jail;
8 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015(xii) Even if the death of the deceased was suicidal, he committed the same because he was afraid of going to jail;
(xiii) None of the accused persons instigated the deceased to commit suicide;
(xiv) By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that due to conduct of the accused persons, the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.
Therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/state on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.
9. On perusal of record and due consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this Criminal Appeal against conviction must succeed and the Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:
10. By way of cross-examination before the trial Court and arguments before this Court the appellants have vehemently opposed the fact that the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. Alternatively, it has further been argued that it related to some other incident. However, this Court is in agreement of the line of reasoning of the trial Court, which has held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased. This Court also concurs with the finding of the trial Court that the death of 9 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 the deceased was suicidal and not accidental. As such, no fault can be found with the aforesaid findings.
11. However, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court to the effect that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons in the Court premises prior to commission of suicide by him, is susceptible to assault. Aforesaid finding is based upon oral testimony of Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and Rajkumar (PW-8). Admittedly, Kanhaiyalal was friend of the deceased who is said to have joined him on journey from Jabalpur to Gadarwara at Madan Mahal Railway Station. Rajkumar is maternal uncle of the deceased, who had joined the deceased on the said journey from Kareli Railway Station. The gist of the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is that they were sitting outside the Court and Mukesh went inside to attend the hearing. He returned after 10-15 minutes and told them that Magistrate Saheb has directed him to deposit the entire amount. After that, Mukesh's father-in-law Shukla Prasad and brother-in-law (Bharat) arrived. They caught hold of the shirt-collar of the deceased and beat him. His wife (Bharti) and mother-in-law (Munni Devi) also beat the deceased with slippers. Kanhaiyalal interceded on behalf of the deceased and took him to one side. After that, Rajkumar went away to arrange for the amount. When he did not return for a period of about one hour, Mukesh asked Kanhaiyalal to wait there and himself went in search of Rajkumar. When Mukesh did not return for a period of about one and a half hour, Kanhaiyalal went out in search for Mukesh. At about 3:00 p.m. they learnt on Railway Station that Mukesh was cut up by a train.
10 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/201512. In cross-examination, Kanhaiyalal has admitted that he never accompanied Mukesh on any hearing of his case at Jabalpur. He is not aware of the name of Mukesh's advocate. Kanhaiyalal and Rajkumar did not identify the dead body of the deceased. None of them signed any of the documents like spot map (Ex.P/27), panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P/24) and notice (Ex.P/23) etc. which were prepared on that day. Had these witnesses been present on the spot, it would have been expected of them to sign these documents because after all they had accompanied the deceased to the Court on the date of the incident. No report was lodged by these witnesses or by Mukesh himself immediately after he was beaten by the appellants. None of these witnesses called the family members of the deceased at Jabalpur on mobile phone regarding death of Mukesh. Investigating Officer Varsha Anandan (PW-10) has categorically stated that when she prepared the panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P/24), witness Kanhaiyalal was not present. The statement of Rajkumar (PW-8) has been recorded 3 or 4 months after the date of the incident. Aforesaid circumstances cumulatively taken, create a doubt regarding the presence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and Rajkumar (PW-8) at the time of aforesaid incident.
13. Moreover, the incident is said to have taken place in the Court premises, yet neither deceased Mukesh himself nor any of aforesaid two witnesses went inside the Court and complained to the Magistrate regarding the incident. They did not raise an alarm and attract attention of any of the policemen, who are expected to be on duty in the Court premises during Court 11 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 working hours. This also makes the allegation that on the date of the incident, prior to commission of suicide, the deceased was beaten up by the appellants, unworthy of credit.
14. The most important aspect of the matter is that the suicide note (Ex.P/3) on which the prosecution has placed heavy reliance, contains a litany of complaints against the appellants, yet makes no mention of the fact that immediately prior to the writing of the suicide note, the deceased had been beaten by any of the appellants. All complaints made by the deceased in the suicide note against the appellants were quite old and stale in time. As per the prosecution, the beating given by the appellants on the date of the incident to the deceased was proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back. Had the beating really acted as trigger for the deceased to commit suicide, the incident would have been fresh in his mind at the time of writing the suicide note and he would surely have mentioned the same therein. Total absence of any such mention from the suicide note, creates a grave doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations made by witnesses Kanhaiyalal and Rajkumar that the deceased was beaten up by the appellants in the Court. As such, this part of the prosecution story is not reliable.
15. There is sufficient material on record to indicate that appellant Bharti had instituted a case for dowry harassment against the deceased and at least his father, in which they were acquitted. It is also true that the deceased had made averments in the suicide note (Ex.P/3) to the effect that ever since the marriage, appellant Bharti and other appellants have been harassing him and his family members. They have also been 12 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 demanding money and they threatened him that if their demand for money was not met, they would get him implicated in false cases. It has also been mentioned that the deceased and his family members made several efforts to bring Bharti back to her matrimonial home but since, Bharti was interested only in money, she never returned. She exploited the fact that she was a woman to the hilt, in the Court. Though, he had concrete evidence against his wife, no hearing was given to him. He was tired of making payments to his wife. On the date of writing suicide note, appellant Bharti and her father (Shukla Prasad) had given a poison injection and a pill to him to consume. They wanted him to commit suicide so that they would be able to marry Bharti off to some wealthy person. In the suicide note, the deceased had held the appellants categorically responsible for his suicide and opined that his wife and in-laws had taken unfare advantage of straightforwardness of his parents.
16. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether aforesaid conduct on the part of the appellants, amounts to abetment of suicide.
17. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be apposite to take a look at the prevailing legal position:
12. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
13. Term abetment has been defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or 13 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
14. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
"To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it it not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred (Emphasis supplied)
15. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 (Supreme Court) that:
"20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide".....
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The Supreme Court further observed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 that:
"The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option accept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred."
17. Likewise in the case of Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 3 SCC 699, it was observed that:
"The circumstances enumerated in the suicide note and oral evidence show that accused created circumstances which left no option for the wife but to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life."14 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015
18. On the same point, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Aman Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2005 (2) JLJ 224 observed as hereunder:
More so, in this case the accused has not by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which an instigation may have been inferred.
18. When we revert to the facts of the case in the backdrop of aforesaid legal position, we find that there is little doubt, if any, about the fact that ever since the marriage, the relation of the deceased and appellant Bharti had become strained. In the suicide note, the deceased had blamed Bharti's lust for money for deterioration of relationship; however, it appears unlikely in Indian context that a wife or her relatives would demand money from the groom and his family members. It has been alleged that appellant Bharti exploited her position as a woman to obtain relief from the Court. However, if certain laws have been enacted to protect married women from the husbands and their relatives, the appellants were entitled to take recourse to those laws and the fact that appellant Bharti had instituted a case of dowry harassment against the deceased which resulted in acquittal, by itself, cannot be considered to be abetment of suicide. It is an admitted position that the order of monthly maintenance was subsisting in favour of appellant Bharti and her daughter and it is quite possible that the deceased nurtured a feeling of resentment at the fact that he was unjustly required to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter because he was prepared to keep them but at the end of the day the order was 15 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 passed by a Court of law after following judicial process and the grievance of the deceased was misplaced.
19. Another startling allegation that has been leveled in the suicide note against appellant Bharti and her father is to the effect that they had handed over a poison injection and a pill to the deceased to consume on the date of the incident; however, there is no mention of such an act on the part of Bharti and Shukla Prasad in the statement of either Kanhaiyalal or Rajkumar. At any rate, this allegation appears to be highly improbable. The nature of this allegation indicates that the deceased had taken recourse to falsehood while writing the suicide note.
20. It is an admitted fact that on the date of the offence the deceased had gone to attend hearing in the Court in the execution case instituted by appellant Bharti against him and on that date the learned Magistrate had asked him to deposit entire arrears of maintenance allowance running into thousands of rupees. He sent his maternal uncle to arrange for the amount.
The trial Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Court had warned the deceased that if he did not deposit the arrears, he would be sent to jail. It has also been observed on the basis of statement of Shankarlal, father of the deceased that earlier also he was sent to jail in the same case and was released only after depositing Rs.14,000/-. Thus, the prospect of going to jail was not new for the deceased and this apprehension could not have triggered suicidal instincts in him. In the opinion of this Court, aforesaid finding is unsustainable.
16 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/201521. It is true that on 12.11.2007, the trial Court had only mentioned in the order sheet that in case Rs.10,000/- were not deposited, stringent action will be taken on the next date. On 03.12.2007., the trial Court had recorded in the order sheet that the case was fixed on that date for the payment of amount by the deceased. It was further recorded that the deceased had prayed for time till afternoon to arrange the amount. This prayer was accepted and the case was directed to be taken up again in the afternoon. On the basis of aforesaid two order sheets, the trial Court has concluded that the executing Court had not given any threat to the deceased that if the amount is not deposited, he would be sent to jail. This argument is fallacious. Experience tells that whatever transpires in the Court, ordinarily, is not recorded word by word in the order sheet. It is common practice in Magisterial Courts in marital cases to warn the husband that in case he does not deposit allowance, particularly arrears, he may be sent to Civil Jail. This usually is not a threat but simply a warning so that the husband realizes the consequences of his adamancy and deposits the arrears if he can. On the previous date, the executing Court had clearly mentioned that in case the amount is not deposited "stringent action" will be taken. Phrase "stringent action" was obviously a veiled reference to jail term. It is clear that the purport of the Court order was not lost upon the deceased. Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) has admitted that the deceased was tense when he came out of the Court. In these circumstances, even if the deceased had already undergone a spell in the jail, it was certainly not a welcome prospect. He also nurtured sense of 17 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 victimization, even if misplaced. Therefore, he seems to have committed suicide.
22. Be that as it may, it is very obvious that the appellants had no control over the life of the deceased. They did not actively instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Simply because there was a matrimonial dispute and the wife and his relatives were vigorously pursuing the remedies available to them under the law, does not mean that they wanted the deceased to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, due to commission of suicide by the deceased, the prospect of appellant Bharti getting maintenance allowance from him, vanished. So she stood to gain nothing from the death of the deceased. If she wanted to get rid of the deceased, she would have opted to apply for divorce, instead.
23. In aforesaid view of the matter, it is lucid that the appellants did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground for presuming that the appellants by their persistent conduct, had succeeded in creating such a situation for the deceased in which he was left with no option but to commit suicide. In fact there were several legal options available to the deceased. He could have obtained divorce from his wife on the ground of desertion. He could have taken recourse to higher Courts against the order of maintenance but instead of doing that, he chose to take the escapist route and committed suicide, for which the appellants cannot be held legally liable. Thus, the marital dispute might have been the cause for the deceased to commit suicide but it cannot be said that it amounted to abetment of suicide. The 18 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015 Court must not lose sight of the distinction between cause of suicide and abetment of suicide.
24. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any of the appellants abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court grievously erred in convicting the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
25. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1271/2015 is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. Appellants Shukla Prasad, Bharti, Bharat and Munni Devi are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.1544/2015 for enhancement of sentence, is dismissed.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge Digitally signed by BIJU BABY b Date: 2018.07.03 22:51:23 -07'00' 19 Cr.A.No. 1271/2015 Cr.R. No.1544/2015