Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kesar Lal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)WLC264, 1996(2)WLN1
JUDGMENT N.L. Tibrewal, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated, November 23, 1994 passed by Shri B.D. Gupta, Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases) cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 36/93 whereby the appellant - Kesar Lal has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant - Atma Ram has been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
2. The case relates to an incident which took place towards North-West of village Gawri at about 6.30 p.m. on May 20, 1993. One Mukut Singh Rajput died as a result of the assault made on him by the appellant Kesar Lal with an axe. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant Kesar Lal was having his agricultural field near the pasture land of the village and on the day of incident he made encroachment on the public way, as well as, on the pasture land by extending fence (Bar) of his field. The public way was leading to the fields of other villagers including that of the deceased Mukut Singh. On the day of incident, at about 5 p.m., P.W. 3 Amra Bairwa informed the deceased Mukut Singh about the fact of making encroachment on public way by the appellant - Kesar Lal and there-upon, deceased Mukut Singh, his son P.W. 7 Abhimanyu singh and P.W. 3 Amra came to the scene of occurrence in a Jeep where they found the appellants and co-accused Dev Lal sitting near their respective fields. P.W. 4 Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W. 5 Mohan Nayak and P.W. 6 Jagdish Khati also came there while passing through the way. After reaching near the place of occurrence deceased Mukut Singh asked the accused persons from a short distance in a loud voice as to why they were making encroachment on the public way. It is alleged that all the three accused persons, namely, the appellants and co-accused-Dev Lal there-upon, came near to Mukut Singh and at that, time, the appellants Kesar Lal and Atma Ram were having axe in their hands. Kesar Lal and Dev Lal, than came near to the deceased and told him that they would close the public way as it was covered by the land of their fields. Other persons who were present on the spot also tried to dissuade the accused from making encroachment on the public way, but it had no effect. The deceased also told the accused that it was not a good thing. There-upon, the appellant Kesar Lal inflicted two blows with the axe on his neck. His son Abhimanyu Singh when came forward to save him, an attempt was made by the appellant to strike him by axe but the same was caught by the witnesses Amra and Jagdish Khati before it could land on him. From the injuries of the deceased, blood fell on the earth and clothes of the appellant Kesar Lal and Dev Lal co-accused. Mukut Singh was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Deoli in a Jeep where he died soon thereafter. P.W. 1 Raghubir Singh informed the police at Police Station, Deoli at 7.15 p.m. on telephone about his death with a request to reach at the Hospital where dead body was lying. This information was reduced in writing in "Rojnamcha" maintained at the Police Station, which is marked as Ex. P. 23 on the record. On getting information, the S.H.O Anand Singh, alongwith A.S.I. Kamal Kishore and other police persons immediately reached at the hospital where a written report Ex. P. 5 was made by Abhimanyu Singh. The report was received at 7.30 p.m. and it was sent to the Police Station through A.S.I. Kamal Kishore, where Crime No. 100/93 was registered under Section 302, 307/34 I.P.C. After registration of the case, investigation commenced.
3. Inquest Report (Ex. P.1) of dead body was prepared in the hospital in the night itself and blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.2. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by P.W. 21 Dr. O.P. Jain at 7 a.m. on 21.5.93 and the following external injuries were noticed vide post-mortem report Ex. P. 25:
(i) Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm on right side of the neck
(ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on back of the neck On internal examination, injuries were found on right common carotid artery and right internal jugular vein. Muscles of right side of neck and back of neck were also cut. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was excessive bleeding from the wounds leading to hypolumic shock (peripheral failure). He also opined that injury No. 1 on the neck of the deceased was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature and both the injuries were anti-mortem and caused between 6 to 18 hours before the examination. He also opined that the injuries could be caused by an axe.
4. Site plan of the place of incident was prepared on 21.5.93 in presence of the witnesses Amra Bairwa, Abhimanyu Singh and Lala Ram. Blood smeared and control soil was taken from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex. P.4. The appellants Kesar Lal and Dev Lal were arrested on 21.5.93 vide arrest memos Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12. One 'Kurta' and 'Dhoti of Kesar Lal, stained with blood, were seized on 21.5.93 vide seizure memo Ex.P. 14. Thereafter, on his information the weapon of offence i.e. an axe was recovered vide recovery/seizure memo Ex. P.6. clothes of the co-accused Dev Lal were also seized during investigation. The axe clothes of the deceased and of the accused Kesar Lal and Dev Lal were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination and vide report Ex. P. 26 the articles were found stained with human blood having "B" group blood.
5. After completion of the investigation, a Charge-Sheet came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, against the appellants and co-accused Dev Lal, who were ultimately tried in the Court of Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases) cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk. Charges under Section 302 and 307/34 were framed against the appellant Kesar lal, while charges under Sections 302/34 and 307 I.P.C. were framed against the appellant Atma Ram and charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 were framed against the appellant Dev lal. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses to prove the Guilt of the accused. Out of them P.W. 3 Amra, P.W. 4 Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W. 5 Mohan Nayak, P.W. 6 Jagdish and P.W. 7 Abhimanyu Singh were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 21 is Dr. O.P. Jain who conducted post-mortem examination and P.W. 22 S.H.O. Anand Singh is the Investigating Officer. No, witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Judge, after completion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Co-accused Dev Lal was acquitted of both the charges.
7. Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned Sr. Advocate, for the appellants, assailed conviction of the appellants on several grounds. It was seriously contended by him that the telephonic message Ex. P. 23 is the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the written report Ex. P.5, on basis of which F.I.R. Ex. P.22 was chalked out, is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) and as such, the same is inadmissible in evidence. The testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses were assailed on several grounds which shall be discussed later-on.
Lastly, it was contended by the learned Counsel that as per finding of the trial court, both the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by a single blow and in the facts and circumstances, the accused-appellant Kesar Lal acted in exercise of the right of private defence of property and the offence against him does not travel beyond 304 Part-II I.P.C. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the complainant has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
8. Now let us first take the seriously agitated question as to whether the written report Ex. P. 5, made by Abhimanyu Singh to the S.H.O in the hospital, Deoli which was treated as F.I.R., is hit by Section 162 of the Code ? It is a common ground that on the receipt of information on telephone regarding the occurrence at 7.15 p.m., the S.H.O. Anand Singh rushed to the hospital at Deoli where dead body of the deceased Mukut Singh was lying. Before he started any investigation in the case the report Ex.P.5 was given by P.W. 7 - Abhimanyu Singh at 7.30 p.m. 9 Section 154 of the Code requires an Officer. Incharge of a Police Station to reduce In writing every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to such police officer. It further requires that such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be read over to the informant and every such information shall be signed by the person giving it and substance thereof shall be reduced in the book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Section 162 of the Code prohibits the use of all statements to a police officer made "in the course of investigation" except for the strict limited purpose as provided in the proviso. Such statement cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration or as a substantive evidence and can be used by the accused, or with the permission of the Court by the prosecution only for the purpose of contradicting the witness, who has made such a statement, in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, So, the ban imposed by Section 162 applies only to the statements made "in the course of investigation". The question, whether investigation had commenced or not, is a question of fact and the words "in the course of investigation" import that the statement must be made as a step in a pending investigation to be used in that investigation.
10. The telephonic message, giving information of a cognizable offence, is often a matter of controversy as to whether it constitutes a F.I.R. or not. In this matter, the view of the Supreme Court is consistent that if the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and' the object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the F.I.R. but to request the Officer - Incharge of the Police Station to reach to the place of occurrence or where the dead body is lying, it cannot be treated as F.I.R. (See Tapendra Singh v. State of Punjab ; Soma Bhai v. State of Gujrat ; Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhanna v. State of West Bengal and Ram Singh Babaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1994) 2 SCC 698. In deciding the question the Court has also taken into consideration, whether the telephonic message about commission of a cognizable offence was treated as the F.I.R. by the incharge of the Police Station. On the other hand, if information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information, the Officer Incharge is prima facie statisfied about the commission of cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence, then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence, including about the participants, shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the Police Officer "in the course of investigation" and is covered by Section 162 of the Code. It is not in dispute that such statement may be given in writing or oral.
11. In the instant case, the telephonic message about commission of a cognizable offence was received at the Police Station, Deoli at 7.15 p.m. on 20.5.93 and the said information was recorded in "Rojnamcha" as Ex. P. 23. This information was not treated as F.I.R. by the Incharge of the Police Station and he rushed to the hospital where written report Ex. P.5, was made by Abhimanyu Singh, detailing out all the facts about commission of the offence. It is no doubt true that telephonic message Ex. P. 23, contained the fact of murder of Mukut Singh by the accused persons but still it was lacking other information and details about the occurrence, namely, the place of incident, the persons who witnessed the incident and the manner in which the incident took place. It further appears that the object and purpose of giving telephonic message was not to lodge the F.I.R. but to inform the police with an object to request the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to reach at the hospital, Deoli where the dead body was lying. The Investigating Officer also did not treat the telephonic message as F.I.R. perhaps because he was not satisfied about the details of the occurrence. The information was also not conveyed by an eye witness of the occurrence. In such situation, can it be said that investigation was pending when report Ex.P.5 was made by Abhimanyu Singh ?As stated earlier, Section 162 does not refer to all other statements recorded by the Police, but only to those statements made in the course of investigation under Chapter-XII of a cognizable offence. The ban under Section 162 does not apply to a statement made to the police before starting investigation. After considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the report Ex.P.5, which was treated as F.I.R.., is not hit by Section 162 of the Code, as we are satisfied that investigation of the case had not commenced. The law is well settled that any statement or report made to the Incharge of the Police Station before commencement of the investigation is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
12. The matter may be examined from another angle. Assuming that the telephonic message (Ex.P.23) made by Raghubir Singh falls within the mischief of F.I.R. and the report (Ex.P.5) is hit by Section 162, then, too, it is not likely to have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. It is note-worthy that the statement of principal witness, Abhimanyu Singh under Section 161 of the Code was recorded by the I.O. in Hospital at Deoli in the night of occurrence in which he gave all necessary facts about the occurrence, namely, the place of incident, names of the assailants and eye-witnesses and the manner in which the incident took place. It is not a case where the Investigator deliberately did not treat the telephonic message (Ex.P.23) as F.I.R. to mark time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and to introduce eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Hence, the fate of the case will ultimately depend on the testimony of eye-witnesses of occurrence.
13. Having taken in mind the various aspects of the case, we now proceed to assess the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In fact, the crucial question that calls for consideration in the case is, whether the evidence of eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.3 - Amra, P.W.4 - Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W. 5 - Mohan Nayak, P.W. 6 - Jagdish and P.W. 7 - Abhimanyu Singh is reliable or not ? The trial Court has recorded conviction of the appellants placing reliance on the testimony of eye-witnesses. Shri Bajwa assailed their testimony on several grounds. The first criticism relates to delay in recording their statements by the Investigating Agency. Elaborating this contention, Mr. Bajwa pointed out that statements of Mohan Nayak and Jagdish Khati were recorded by the I.O. on 23.5.93 i.e. after two days of the occurrence, while the. statements of P.Ws. Mohan Lal Bairwa and Amra were recorded at 3.45 p.m. on 21.5.93. Mr. Bajwa contended that delay in recording the statements of some of the eye-witnesses, in the facts and circumstances of the case, casts suspicion on the credibility of their testimony as well as the prosecution story. Reliance is placed in this connection on two decisions of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Brahmanand Nanda and Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra.
14. In Brahmanand Nanda's case (Supra), the entire prosecution case depended on the testimony of a sole eye-witness who did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the occurrence and the explanation offered by him for non-disclosure was not accepted by the Court. In these circumstances, his testimony was not believed by observing that delay in not disclosing the name of the appellant was a serious infirmity and it destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. In Ganesh Bhavan Patel's case (Supra), it was observed that delay of few hours simplicities in recording statements of eye-witnesses by the Investigating Officer may not by itself amount a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, but it may assume such a character if there are non-comitant circumstances to suggest that the Investigating Officer, was deliberately marking time to give shape to the case and to introduce eye-witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of that case it was observed that inordinate delay in registration of F.I.R. and further delay in recording statements of the material witnesses cast cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire prosecution.
15. We carefully examined this aspect of the case and the reasoning given in the above decisions. At the out-set, it may be stated that on facts - the above decisions have no application in the present case. The present case is not of that type where prosecution story and names of the eye-witnesses were not disclosed at the earliest possible time. In the report (Ex.P.5), the incident has been narrated with all necessary facts and the names of eye-witnesses have been disclosed. The statement of P.W.7-Abhimanyu Singh, the principal eye-witness of the occurrence, was recorded by the I.O. in the hospital itself in the same night immediately after registration of the case. In his statement he has narrated entire prosecution story and the names of the eye-witnesses. So, the present case is not of that type where the Investigating Officer was marking time for the purpose of giving shape to the prosecution story or introducing false eye-witnesses.. It is also pertinent to mention that neither that I.O. nor the witnesses have been cross-examined on the point of delay in recording their statements. On facts also it is borne out that statement of Abhimanyu Singh was recorded by the I.O. without any delay, while statements of P.W. 3-Amra and P.W.4- Mohan Lal Bairwa were recorded on the next day of the occurrence. P.W. 3-Amra has also participated in investigation of the case which was made on the next day of the incident, in as much as, the site-plan (Ex.P.3) was prepared in his presence and blood smeared soil and control soil was also taken in his presence vide memo Ex.P.4. So it cannot be said that he was falsely made a witness of the occurrence.
16. Another infirmity to discard the evidence of eye-witnesses Amra, Mohan Lal Bairwa and Jagdish Khati was pointed out by Mr. Bajwa on the ground that they were cultivating the fields of the deceased and as such, were interested witnesses. P.W.4-Mohan Lal has denied the fact of cultivating the land of the deceased. Further, it was not suggested at any point of time that the witnesses had any enmity or ill-will against the accused to falsely Implicate them. Simply because some of the witnesses cultivated the land of the deceased without anything more, in Our considered opinion, can hardly be a ground to discard their testimony. P.W.-3 Amra and P.W.4-Mohan Lal were in the Jeep of the deceased when they had gone to the place of occurrence on information given by Amra to the deceased about making encroachment on the public way by the appellant Kesar Lal by extending fancy of his field. Still, we examined their evidence with great care and caution keeping in view the above criticism, but after going through their evidence, we do not find any ground to disbelieve them. Their evidence appears to be consistent, firm and convincing.
17. Mr. Bajwa, then, contended that the conduct of witnesses at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence was abnormal and unnatural as they did not try to catch hold the axe when it was being inflicted on the deceased or to catch hold the assailant Kesar Lal. In light of the above submission, we again considered the statements of eye-witnesses and we find no substance in the above submission. From the evidence of eye-witnesses it transpires that appellant Kesar Lal inflicted two axe blows on the neck of the deceased in quick succession. It has come in evidence that P.W.7-Abhirhanyu Singh ran towards his father Mukut Singh (deceased) to save his and while doing so an attempt on his life was made by the appellant Atma Ram with an axe but it proved futile as the axe was caught by the witnesses Amra and Jagdish Khati. Thus, it is not correct that the witnesses did not try to rescue the victim. On the question of failure to catch hold the assailant - Kesar Lal, no cross-examination has been made to the witnesses on this point. In any case, after infliction of injuries to the deceased, the anxiety of all the persons, who were present there, must be to immediately shift him to the hospital to save his life and the entire energy and attention of the witnesses must have been diverted to take the victim to the hospital in a jeep. On this score also, we find no substance in the contention and in our opinion, no inference can be drawn against the witnesses to discard their testimony.
18. During the course of arguments, a serious controversy was raised by Mr. Bajwa on the question whether the appellant Kesar Lal Inflicted one blow or two blows to the deceased Mukut Singh. This controversy is raised to show that it is a case of single injury and as such, the offence does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.
19. From postmortem report it is clear that the deceased sustained two incised wounds viz. 10 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm on right side of the neck and 10 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on back of the neck. A perusal of the injuries shows that they are extensive in nature and were sustained at two distinct sides of the neck i.e. back and right sides of the neck. The prosecution eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.3- Amra, P.W.4-Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W.5-Mohan Nayak and P.W.6-Jagdish are unanimous that two axe blows were inflicted in quick succession by the appellant - Kesar Lal which struck on the right side and on the back of neck of the deceased. Their evidence is clear and consistent on this point right from the beginning. No- doubt, Dr. O.P. Jain in his cross-examination has opined that both the injuries could be possible by one blow of an axe if after the first blow, the axe gets slipped on the neck. It is also true that the trial Court, on basis of the opinion of the Doctor, has observed that both the injuries were the result of a single axe blow. However, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the trial Court. In our view, the opinion of the Doctor based on some eventuality cannot be accepted when there is consistent and reliable evidence of eye-witnesses that two axe blows were inflicted to the deceased. The statement of Doctor that after infliction of the first blow, the second injury could be due to the slip of the axe if the victim moved, appears to be wholly hypothetical and such opinion cannot be accepted looking to the dimensions of the two injuries and the distinct parts of the neck where they are inflicted as well as the consistent evidence of the witnesses.
20. Further, no inference can be drawn against the prosecution by the mere fact that In F.I.R. it was not mentioned specifically that two axe blows were given to the victim. F.I.R., is not a last word of the prosecution. Its author P.W.7-Abhimanyu Singh has given an explanation for this omission when he states, that after indication of first blow to the deceased on right side of his neck, he, too, was attacked by the appellant Atma Ram with an axe and he was completely perplexed and unable to see as to what had happened thereafter. This explanation appears to be quite reasonable and plausible. It may be stated that in inquest report also two incised wounds are noted on the neck of the deceased. We, therefore, reject the contention of Mr. Bajwa that the deceased has sustained both the incised wounds by one axe blow.
21. Next contention of Mr. Bajwa that evidence of P.W.5-Mohan Nayak and P.W.6-Jagdish Khati should not be relied upon on the ground of their being chance witnesses is also not sustainable. Both these witnesses have stated that they were returning from their fields at the time of incident. This statement appears to be reasonable and believable looking to the time of incident which was above 6 p.m. which is also normal time for returning from the fields. Hence, their presence at the scene of occurrence is quite natural. Then names of these witnesses find place in F.I.R. which was made promptly within 1-1/2 hours of the occurrence. We are, not inclined to discard the testimony of these witnesses on this ground, specialty when we find the same as quite natural and consistent. We also reject the contention of Mr. Bajwa that prosecution case should not be relied for the reason that some other witnesses who were stated to be present at the seen of occurrence, have not been examined by the prosecution. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses who are stated to be present at the time of occurrence. On this ground, the evidence of eye-witnesses examined during trial cannot be rejected specially when their evidence is found to be reliable. Thus, after examining all criticisms levelled by Mr. Bajwa, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge committed no error in placing reliance on the testimony of eye-witnesses P.W.-3Amra, P.W.4-Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W.5-Mohan Nayak, P.W.6-Jagdish Khati and P.W.T-Abhimanyu Singh.
22. The evidence of these eye-witnesses is re-enforced by the recovery of blood stained axe and blood smeared clothes of the appellant Kesar Lal which were found to be stained with human blood and it also tallied with blood group of the deceased. This is strong corroborative evidence to connect the appellant Kesar Lal with crime.
23. Mr. Bajwa then contended that the appellant Kesar Lal had acted In exercise of right of private defence of property. According to Mr. Bajwa, the deceased had set fire to the fence of thorny bushes (Bar) and it gave a right of private defence to the appellant Kesar Lal to defend his property. This argument has no leg to stand, firstly, the prosecution witnesses, P.W.3-Amra, P.W.4-Mohan Lal Bairwa, P.W.5-Mohan Nayak and P.W.6-Jagdlsh Khati have categorically denied that at the time of occurrence, deceased Mukut Singh set fire to the fence (Bar) of the field of the appellant Kesar Lal. However, Mr. Bajwa tried to develop this argument on basis of vague stray statement of P.W.4-Mohan Lal Bairwa who stated in his cross-examination that the thorny bushes (Bar) was burning. This statement has been clarified by the witness in next sentence that it was burning from before. It would be relevant to state the defence taken by Kesar Lal In his statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where-in he has not stated that the fence was set on fire In the evening when the Incident took place. On the contrary he has stated that the fence was set on fire in the morning and In the evening when he was mending his fence (Bar) the incident took place. Thus, as per the statement of Kesar Lal, the deceased did not lit fire to the fence when the incident took place. We, therefore, have no hesitation to reject this contention also.
24. The last contention of Shri Bajwa relates to the nature of offence committed by the appellant Kesar Lal. For this, he seriously contended that the offence made out against the appellant in the facts and circumstances in Under Section 304 I.P.C. and not Under Section 302. We are unable to agree with this contention. The injuries inflicted by the appellant on the person of the deceased by a formidable weapon like axe and that too on the neck, a vital part of the body having 3 cm. and 2 cm. depth manifestly and clearly establish that the assailant intended to kill the deceased. The circumstances of the Incident also show that the assault on the deceased was deliberate and intentional and two axe blows on his neck were not accidental. It also appears that the blows were given with some force and the deceased Mukut Singh died within two hours of the occurrence. Injury No. 1 has been opined by the Doctor to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The case, therefore, also falls within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. According to this clause, culpable homicide is murder if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant-Kesar Lal under Section 302 I.P.C. is well founded factually and legally. For the appellant-Atma Ram, no argument was advanced by the learned Counsel presumably because, he is convicted under Section 324 read with Section 511 I.P.C. to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.