Delhi District Court
Fir No. 337/2013, Ps: New Ashok Nagar ... vs . Sanjay Kumar Yadav on 22 February, 2020
FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
IN THE COURT OF ACMM (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Presiding Officer: Dinesh Kumar, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
FIR No. 337/2013
PS : New Ashok Nagar
U/s 279/304A IPC
Date of Institution : 13.10.2014
Date of reserving of order : 15.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 22.02.2020
JUDGMENT
CNR No.DLET020012972014
1. Serial No. of the case : 4746/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Ct. Manish Kumar
3. Date of incident : 21.07.2013
4. Name of accused person :
Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Swami Nath Yadav R/o Pirokala, PO Attola PS Baldirai, Distt. Sultanpur, UP.
5. Offence for which chargesheet was filed : S.279/304A IPC
6. Offence for which charge Page 1 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav has been framed : S.279/304A IPC
7. Plea of accused : Not guilty
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Judgment : 22.02.2020 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the accused herein, has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.2013, information was received at PS New Ashok Nagar regarding an accident near CRPF camp, new kondli road. The information was recorded vide DD no.12. The DD was marked to ASI Subhash Chand for inquiry. He reached at the spot. He met with Ct. Manish. The offending vehicle bearing no. DL 2W 0498 was also found on the spot. He came to know that injured was shifted to hospital. He reached at the hospital and obtained the MLC of unknown person. Injured was not fit to make his statement. The IO returned at the spot. Ct. Manish told him that he was an eye witness. He recorded the statement Page 2 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav of Ct. Manish. Thereafter ASI Subhash Chand prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered. The IO started investigation. The offending vehicle was seized. Notice under Section 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the vehicle. He replied that Sanjay Kumar Yadav was the driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date and time. He also produced the accused Driver before the IO.
The accused was arrested. He was released on bail. Steps were taken for identification of the injured. On 21.07.2013, the IO received the information vide DD no. 32A regarding the death of victim during treatment. The deceased could not be identified. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A, Indian Penal Code.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, Page 3 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav notice for the offence punishable under Section 279/304 A IPC was served upon the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Manish is the complainant. He has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was posted as constable at PS New Ashok Nagar. He was on beat motorcycle patrolling duty. At about 8.50 am, when he was standing outside the police booth Mayur Vihar PhaseIII, he saw one Gramin Sewa vehicle bearing no. DL 2W4098 was going towards khoda colony side while coming from Kondli side. It was being driven by the accused. He was driving the vehicle at a high speed. While driving the vehicle in such a manner he had hit it again a pedestrian from back side at some distance ahead from the police booth in front of CRPF camp. The pedestrian had fallen down on the road. The accused started fleeing away from the spot while driving the offending vehicle. He chased the accused on his motorcycle. The accused stopped the offending vehicle at Khoda chowk and fled away after leaving the offending Page 4 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav vehicle. He had brought the offending vehicle at the police post with the help of another driver. He sent message to the control room through wireless set and injured was sent to the LBS hospital by the car of one passerby. IO had come at the spot alongwith constable Vinod. IO recorded his statement ExPW1/A. IO left for the hospital leaving him on the spot. After about 3040 minutes IO returned back at the spot. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the IO after returning to the spot. He prepared a rukka and sent the same to the PS for registration of FIR through Ct. Vinod. After Ct. Vinod returned to the spot the offending vehicle i.e. Gramin Sewa was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and thereafter, the offending vehicle was taken to the PS. On the same day in the evening the details of the owner of the vehicle were taken out and a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was issued to the owner of the vehicle. In the evening the owner Darshan Lal produced the accused before the IO and gave his reply to the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act stating that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. He also identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the IO/SI Subhash Chand Page 5 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/C and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW1/D. The accused also produced the documents that are original RC, Permit, Insurance, Fitness of the offending vehicles and their photocopies were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW1/E and his driving license which was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW1/F.
6. The witness identified the accused in the court. He also identified the offending vehicle from the photographs which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
7. PW2 ASI Sabir Ali is the duty officer. He has deposed that on 21.07.2013, he registered the FIR of the present case on the rukka sent by SI Subhash. He has proved the rukka Ex. PW2/B and FIR Ex. PW2/A.
8. PW3 SI Kheta Ram was a constable in Delhi police on 30.07.2013. He has deposed that on the directions of IO SI Arji Ram, he had got the postmortem of dead body of deceased unknown at GTB Hospital. His dead body was lying in mortuary, GTB Hospital. Since the deceased was unknown and his relatives could not be found, he was cremated at Gazipur, Shamshan Ghat after the postmortem on the same day.
Page 6 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
9. PW4 Dr. Ashish Kumar is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased victim. He has deposed that on 30.07.2013 he had conducted postmortem examination of deceased unknown which was brought to the mortuary by IO/SI Arzi Ram alongwith Ct. Kheta Ram and prepared my detailed postmortem report which is Ex.PW4/A. As per his opinion, cause of death was 'shock' as a result of antemortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact.
10. PW5 Dr. Sachin is the CMO of LBS hospital. He has deposed that on 21.07.2013 one unknown patient was brought to casualty with alleged history of RTA. He examined the patient and prepared the MLC No. 9469/13 which is Ex.PW5/A. The patient was referred to Surgery Department for detailed examination.
11. PW6 retired SI Arji Ram is the second IO. He has deposed that the investigation of the present case was handed over to him on 21.07.13. The dead body of the victim could not be identified. Many efforts were made to get the dead body identified but it could not be done. He had received DD No. 9 dt. 21.07.13 CMVAI/Cell/East District. After the death of victim Section 304A was Page 7 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav added. Photograph of the dead body, Ex. P1, and finger prints, Mark A1, running into 4 pages, were taken and the dead body was got preserved for 72 hours. WT message was circulated and intimation in nearby police stations via phone for identification of dead body was circulated. Intimation was also circulated in daily news paper for identification of dead body. On 30.07.13, inquest papers of victim were got prepared and the postmortem of victim was got conducted and thereafter, cremation was done at Ghazipur Shamshan Ghat. He had received postmortem report from the hospital. He had seized one plastic jar from GTB Mortuary with the seal of AGK vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. He also seized cloths of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B.
12. PW7 Sh. Tasnimuddin Siddiqui is the mechanical inspector. He has deposed that on 21.07.2013, on the request of SI Subhash Chand PS New Ashok Nagar, he had inspected Mahindra Champion Three Wheeler Gramin Sewa, white colour bearing regn. no. DL2W0498 and submitted by detailed report with the fresh damages Ex. PW7/A.
13. PW8 Darshan Lal is the registered owner of Page 8 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav the offending vehicle bearing no. DL2W0498. He has deposed that he handed over abovesaid vehicle to accused Sanjay Kumar Yadav for driving on rent. On 21.07.13, abovesaid vehicle was in the possession of accused Sanjay and he was driving the vehicle. He gave written reply on notice given by police officer u/s 133 M.V. Act same is Ex. PW8/A.
14. The witnesses were crossexamined. The prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. He would state that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He was not driving the offending vehicle on the date and time. The owner had taken him to the PS to get the vehicle released where his signatures were taken on some documents and thereafter he was falsely implicated.
15. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. APP for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused was driving the Page 9 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav offending vehicle at the relevant date, time and place. It has also been proved that the offending vehicle had hit the victim. It has also been proved by the eye witnesses that the accused was driving the vehicle at very high speed and in rash or negligent manner. It has been also proved beyond reasonable doubts that victim had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by the accused due to his rash or negligent driving. Hence, the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 279, & 304A, IPC and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
17. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. PW1 Ct. Manish is a planted witness. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place and that he was driving the same at very high speed in rash or negligent manner. Thus, reasonable Page 10 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav doubts have been created on the story of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
19. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused is asked to put his defence.
20. Section 279, IPC prescribes punishment for rash or negligent driving or riding on a public way. To constitute an offence under Section 279, IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way and that he was driving it in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to be caused injury or hurt to any other person. The offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC includes within its ambit the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC. Section 304A, IPC reads as under:
"whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to the culpable homicide, shall be punished with the Page 11 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both".
21. In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove, beyond reasonable doubts, the following facts :
1. the identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle,
2. the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a public place;
3. the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damages to the property;
4. in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it, Page 12 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
5. the rash and negligent driving resulted into the death of the deceased which is not amounting to the culpable homicide, and
6. the rash or negligent act must be the proximate cause of injury of the injured.
22. It is no more res integra that the mere fact that an accident had taken place and some person/s had been injured can not lead to a conclusion of rash or negligent driving. The fact of rash or negligent driving has to be proved by the prosecution by independent evidence.
23. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment entitled "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
Page 13 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav "Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case."
24. In the matter entitled Niranjan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, it has been observed that the main criteria for deciding whether the driving which lead to the accident was rash and negligent is not only speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligations of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to harmful consequences resulting from it. In Mahammed Aynudin V. state of A. P., AIR 2000 SC 2511, it has been held:
"Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution for guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of the vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution".Page 14 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020
FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
25. Negligence is a tort as well as a crime and can be used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under a civil law and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in a criminal law, the degree of the negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten the liability for damages in civil law.
26. In the present case, it has been alleged that accused Sanjay Kumar Yadav had been driving a Gramin Sewa vehicle in rash or negligent manner at high speed on a public road. It is alleged that while driving the said vehicle, the accused had hit a pedestrian who had sustained injuries and later on died due to those injuries.
27. The accused has taken the defence that he was not driving the offending vehicle on relevant date, time and place.
28. Perusal of record would show that the registered owner of the offending vehicle had been examined in the court as Ex.PW8. He had also replied to notice under Section 133 MV Act which is Ex.PW8/A. In his reply and in his testimony, he has stated that on the relevant date and time, accused Sanjay Kumar Yadav, was Page 15 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav in possession of the offending vehicle as a driver. The fact that the accused was in possession of the offending vehicle on the relevant date is not disputed by the accused. No suggestion to that effect has been given to the witness. Now the burden was on the accused to prove that he was not driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place even though he had taken the vehicle on rent from the registered owner. The accused has not led any evidence to prove otherwise. His statement made by him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered an evidence. In such circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the relevant date, time and place.
29. It has been proved on record through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that an accident had happened on the relevant date, time and place and that a pedestrian was injured. The MLC of the injured is on record which is Ex.PW5/A. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the injured had expired during the treatment. PW4 has proved his postmortem report which is Page 16 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav Ex.PW4/A. As per postmortem examination report the cause of death was "shock as a result of antemortem injuries to head produced by blunt force impact". Hence it also stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that the victim had died due to injuries suffered by him in the accident. However, as already discussed, to prove the guilt of the accused, it is not sufficient to show that an accident had happened. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubts that the death of the victim was caused by the accused doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
30. There is only one witness examined by the prosecution as eye witness of the incident. PW1 Ct. Manish is a police official who has deposed that he was on patrolling duty in the area on the day of incident and that he had seen the accident while he was standing at police booth. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
Page 17 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav "22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II "The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered "(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
"Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
31. In the present case, however, no DD entry record of the patrolling duty of Ct. Manish is proved by the prosecution. This was the best evidence in possession of the prosecution which should have been produced in the Court. However the said evidence was never placed on record and therefore adverse inference has to be drawn. Hence, the fact of presence of Ct. Manish on the spot where the accident had happened has come under the clouds of reasonable doubt.
Page 18 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
32. Be that as it may, even if it is presumed, for the sake of arguments, that the witness was present on the spot at the relevant date and time, his statement is not able to prove that the accused was rash or negligent in driving the offending vehicle. PW1 has stated in his testimony that he had seen that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at high speed and he had hit a pedestrian from back side.
33. There is nothing on Court record to suggest what was the speed of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Also there is nothing on Court record to show as to what was the speed limit on the road where the accident had happened. There are no photographs on the record to show whether there were any skid marks of the tyres of the offending vehicle on the spot so as to lead to a conclusion that the offending vehicle was at a high speed.
34. The term high speed is a relative term and in all the cases it does not lead to conclusion automatically that a particular vehicle was being driven in rash or negligent manner. At a particular place a vehicle at a speed of even 30 Kms/hr can be considered as rash driving Page 19 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav while on some highway where there is no traffic even the speed of 60 Kms/hrs can not be considered as rash driving. In any case, I am of the view that the testimony of PW 1 does not show that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in any rash or negligent manner. The fact as deposed by PW1, in itself, does not lead to conclusion in all probabilities that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. There is nothing on Court record to show that there was any red light signal or any zebra crossing at the spot from where the deceased was crossing the road. Thus, it is shown that the victim had been crossing the road from a place which was not meant for crossing the said road. A driver of a vehicle can not anticipate presence of a person in the middle of a road where there is no traffic signal or Zebra crossing or any other signboard to inform the driver that the people might be crossing the road at the said spot. No rash or negligent act on the part of the accused has been proved on record beyond reasonable doubts.
35. It is settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the Page 20 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court. It is settled proposition of law that burden is on the prosecution to prove as to how the accused was rash or negligent in driving the offending vehicle. I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supereme Court of India in Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 221. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "4. It must be said that there is really no good evidence on the side of the prosecution to show how exactly the accident took place..... If a person suddenly crosses the road the Bus Driver, however slowly may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the Bus Driver was negligent."
36. In the present case also it cannot be presumed that the accused must have been driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner only because one person had met with an accident with it on a busy road while crossing it from a place where there was no zebra crossing or any traffic signal.
37. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond Page 21 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav reasonable doubts that the accused had been driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to other person. Hence, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 279, IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubts.
38. Once it is not proved that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner, it also remained not proved that any rash or negligent act of the accused had caused death of the deceased, not amounting to culpable homicide. To impose criminal liability on the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another negligence. It must have been the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.
39. In the light of discussion hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that death was occasioned by either rash and/or negligent Page 22 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020 FIR No. 337/2013, PS: New Ashok Nagar State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav driving of the vehicle or any negligent act of accused. Therefore, benefit of doubts is given to the accused as per law. He is acquitted of the offences alleged.
40. The accused has already furnished bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C., with one surety along with photographs and copies of address proof.
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2020.02.22
04:53:59
+0530
Pronounced in the open Court on (Dinesh Kumar)
this 22nd day of February 2020 ACMM (EAST)
KKD Courts, Delhi.
Page 23 of 23 ACMM(EAST)/KKD/Delhi/22.02.2020