Tripura High Court
Sri Purna Chand Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 6 July, 2022
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 31
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
Crl. A(J) No. 50 of 2020
1. Sri Purna Chand Tripura, son of late Krishna Mohan Tripura of
Village- Gamaichara, P.S. Melaghar, District: Sepahijala
Tripura.
.....Appellant
-V E R S U S-
The State of Tripura.
..... Respondent.
B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing : 29.06.2022
Date of delivery of
judgment and order : 06.07.2022
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.
[2] This criminal appeal under Section-374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.07.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura Judicial District, in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 08 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been Page 2 of 31 convicted under Sections-302/376 of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section-302 of IPC and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the same offence and in default to pay fine money, he will have to suffer RI for further 6(six) months. Further the convict-appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10(ten) years for committing offence punishable under Section-376 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to make payment of fine money, he will have to suffer RI for further 6(six) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
[3] The factual background of the prosecution case is that on 07.06.2017 at about 0800 hours the daughter of the complainant namely Payel Murasing went out from her house towards Kumbapara by riding her bicycle for 'Jhum' cultivation and to supply meal to her father and after reaching there she worked with her father and at about 1230 hours shed proceeded towards house at Kukichara again riding her bicycle after collecting some forest vegetables. But till at about 2030 hours that night she did not return back her house. Thereafter, the parents and other relatives of the victim started searching for her but could not find her out. On the next morning i.e. on 08.06.2017 the parents and other relatives again searched and at about 1300 hours the dead body of Payel Murasing was recovered at East Gamaicharra in the rubber garden of one Chandra Mohan Debbarma. The complainant stated that some unknown miscreants committed rape upon his daughter and then murdered her and left the dead body in the jungle. Prior to receipt of FIR SI Pravat Ch. Shil went to the P.O and recorded the oral Ejahar of the informant and forwarded the same to O/C Melaghar P.S for registration of a specific case.
[4] Accordingly, on receipt of the Ejahar Inspector Manindra Debnath (PW-36), O/C Melaghar P.S registered a specific case bearing Page 3 of 31 No.2017MLG022 under Sections 376/302 of IPC dated 08.06.2017 against some unknown miscreant person and he himself took up investigation of this case.
[4] During investigation, the I/O first of all visited the P.O and also visited the Melaghar Sub-Divisional Hospital Morgue and made the arrangement for post-mortem examination of the dead body, caused arrest of appellant Purna Chand Tripura, the appellant herein, and also produced the witnesses namely Mangalsree and Udai Murasing PWs-22 & 7 respectively for recording their statement under Section-164(5) of Cr.P.C, recorded the disclosure statement of appellant Purna Chand Tripura (Exbt.9 to 9/3) and pointing out memorandum by appellant in presence of two witnesses also one Executive Magistrate and also arranged for potency test of appellant Purna Chand Tripura, forwarded the viscera samples of deceased to SFSL, Narsingarh through SDPO, Sonamura, collected the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, seized some documents of deceased Payel Murasing, the deceased herein, collected the spot visit report prepared by SFSL mobile team and also collected the SFSL report and examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section-161 of Cr.P.C.
[5] After completion of the investigation, the I/O laid charge- sheet against the convict-appellant, namely, Purna Chand Tripura under Sections 376/302/201 of IPC vide C/S No.28 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 in the Court of the then Ld. SDJM, Sonamura, who after taking cognizance of the offence and it being a Sessions Triable case, so after complying with the provision of Section-207 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the case was committed to this Court for disposal according to law.
Page 4 of 31[6] After receiving the case record, the trial of the appellant was initiated on 14.11.2017 and framed charge under Sections-376/302 read with Section 201 of IPC against convict-appelalnt Purna Chand Tripura and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him when he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[7] During trial, to substantiate the charge prosecution has adduced in total 37 (thirty seven) witnesses including the informant of this case mentioned in the appendix attached herewith. The prosecution also relied upon some documentary evidence as well as material object which were also marked as exhibits in connection with the instant case as reflected in the attached appendix. The defence case was that of total denial of the allegation of the prosecution and as such the convict- appellant during his examination under Section-313 of Cr. P.C, pleaded his innocence and denied to adduce any witness in support of his defence.
[8] After hearing both the parties, the learned Court below found that the appellant is guilty for committing offence punishable under Sections-302/376 of IPC and thereby sentenced his as stated supra. For the purpose of reference, the observation of the Court below may be reproduced hereinbelow:
"I have considered the above stated submission made by convict Purna Chand Tripura regarding sentence and considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the convict Purna Chand Tripura is awarded the minimum sentence as provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, I do hereby sentenced the convict Purna Chand Tripura under Section 302 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand) i.d to suffer R.I for 6(six) months.Page 5 of 31
Also I do hereby sentenced the said convict under Section 376 of IPC to suffer R.I for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand) i.d. to suffer R.I for 6(six) months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently."
[9] The appellant herein, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 09.07.2019, has preferred this appeal for ends of justice.
[10] Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of the Court below is perverse, illegal, unjustified, unreasonable, arbitrary, unwarranted in law and facts and as such, not tenable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. The Court below by way of non-reading, misreading and improper appreciation of evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, arrived at absolutely illegal, wrong and unwarranted findings causing grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
[11] He has further submitted that the Court below convicted the appellant on the basis of no evidence inasmuch as, the evidence on record does not constitute the alleged crime and in no case, implicated the convict appellant in the commission of alleged offence. He has submitted that the presence of the appellant in the place of occurrence, is absolutely doubtful and on the basis of such evidence, the appellant could not be legally convicted for the alleged offence.
[12] The learned Court below relied on the improved versions of all the PWs illegally and on the basis of such improved versions, convicted and sentenced the appellant only on surmise and conjecture. The evidence of prosecution suffers from various infirmities and on the face of the evidence on record, there is no scope to presume the appellant to be guilty and more so, none of the witnesses of the prosecution did see to commit Page 6 of 31 the offence by the appellant as alleged by the prosecution and furthermore, the alleged story raised by the prosecution that the appellant threatened the victim for allurement of his sister with another person is totally false and concocted story and no inference can be drawn that present appellant has committed the offence on the alleged date is nothing but a dare false hood story. But, the Court below has failed to appreciate the same.
[13] The prosecution try to prove the circumstantial evidence by showing any chain of circumstances. He has further averred that there was no eye witness to the alleged crime and only based on circumstantial or basis of material evidence on record, the Court below convicted the appellant without application of mind.
[14] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has contended that there is no direct evidence on record regarding commission of the alleged offence by the appellant. So this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence but, in this case prosecution could not raise any circumstance to believe that this present appellant can be held responsible for the murder and moreso, to prove circumstantial evidence it was the duty of the prosecution to satisfy chain of circumstances which the prosecution has miserably failed to explain in this case.
[15] In support of the case of the appellant, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, reported in (2013) Cri.L.J. 3140 at paragraph-8 wherein, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"8. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, this Court held as under:
"The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the? guilt of the appellant. There should not be explainable on any other Page 7 of 31 hypothesis except that the appellant is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the appellant."
[16] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the convict- appellant has placed another judgment of the Apex Court in Amarjit Singh Alias Babbu v. State Punjab, reported 1995 Supp (3) SCC 217 at paragraph-7 wherein, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"7. The entire prosecution case, thus, is clouded with number of infirmities which compel this Court not to accept such an unworthy evidence. These infirmities have been brushed aside by the Designated Court by observing that since the model number of the revolver was noted down, the non-sealing of the revolver or the handing over of the same to some other police official or a private person, who has not been examined are of no consequence. We are unable to agree and subscribe to this view in a case of this nature. The non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. The report of PW 4 that the weapon is capable of being fired is insignificant since it cannot be said with certainty as to what was the condition of the weapon at the time of the recovery, apart from the evidence of PW 4 that he did not test-fire the revolver."
[17] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the convict- appellant has placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Chander Prakash & Ors v. State, reported (2010) Cri.L.J. 4160 at paragraph-7 wherein, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"18. There is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution for two sets of statements of these three material witnesses having been recorded in this case. One possibility is that the investigating agency was trying to help either the appellant or the complainants by fabricating one set of statements. The other possibility is that the witnesses themselves made conflicting statements to the investigating agency. The benefit must necessarily go to the appellant when the material available with the Court does not show that it were the statements favourable to the appellant which were fabricated by the investigating agency. Had the Court found that the investigating agency had fabricated the statements favourable to the appellant with a view to help them, it could have been possible for the Court to discard those statements from consideration. But, when the Page 8 of 31 Court is not in a position to draw such a conclusion, the benefit of contradictory statements will have to be given to the appellant."
[18] Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the point of medical evidence is an opinion and only on the basis of the medical evidence a person cannot be convicted. In this regard, he has placed reliance in State of Tripura v. Haradhan Majumder & Others, reported in (2010) 6 GLR 134, wherein, the Court has observed as under:
"21. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence from w hich it can be said that either the appellant respondent No.1 or the mother in law, the respondent No.2 is a party to the strangulation as opined by the medical officer, PW-7. By this time, it is also settled by the Apex Court that the medical evidence is opinion evidence and only on the basis of the medical evidence, a person should not be convicted unless such evidence is corroborated by other ocular evidence of prosecution witness. As in the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence to support the evidence of the doctor, PW-7 we are unable to accept the evidence of doctor, PW-7 so far his opinion regarding the cause of death by strangulation. In the absence of any injury on the body of the deceased, the evidence of doctor also cannot be relied upon by us as he did not mention in the post mortem report regarding the age of the injury, which he found on the body of the deceased and whether those evidences are ante mortem or post mortem are highly essential to prove the case of the prosecution, but those are totally absent."
[19] To defy the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State strongly defended the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and has prayed to award exemplary punishment to the appellant considering the nature and gravity of the offence he has committed against a helpless woman. He has further submitted that, the convict not only committed rape upon the victim with an assurance to marry her rather after commission of rape he murdered the victim.
[20] In view of the above submissions and observations made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties the learned Court below, let Page 9 of 31 us revisit the evidence once again and we would like to discuss herein below the relevant synopsis of the evidence on record of the prosecution.
[21] PW-1 Bijoy Murasing is the informant of this case and the father of the victim. He deposed that on 07.06.2017 while he was working 'Jhum' cultivation at Kumbapara under Jatrapur P.S at that time at about 10:00 AM his younger daughter Payel Murasingh aged about 12 years came to his work place by riding her bicycle bringing his food and also helped him in cultivation. He further stated that at noon at about 12:30 PM his daughter left his work place towards the house by riding her bicycle along with green vegetable and at night at about 08:00 PM when he returned back to his house he found his younger daughter was missing as she did not return back to the house. He also stated that they searched her in various places but could not find her anywhere at night and on the following day they again started searching the victim and at about 01:00 PM they recovered her dead body in the rubber garden of one Chandra Mohan Debbarma and about 150 meters from the house of one Krishna Mohan Tripura and they find the dead body of his daughter in naked condition in a lunga class of land and her neck was tied by her 'Urna' and her mouth was gagged with the part of such 'Urna'. He again stated that thereafter, one Paresh called police personnel by his mobile phone and thereafter police came there and he laid an oral complaint to the police when darogababu recorded his oral complaint and after recording the same he also read over to him and after knowing the contents he put his signature in the complaint petition and identified his signature marked Exhibit1/1.
[22] He further stated that the younger sister of Purna Chand Tripura namely, Lakuti was the friend of his daughter who about 7 months prior to such incident i.e. in the month of Agrahayana fled away from her Page 10 of 31 house and also married one Bishu Debbarma and thereafter after two months she left the house of Bishu Debbarma and also returned back to her house. At that time in one occasion Purna Chand Tripura threatened his daughter to kill her alleging that she was involved in such incident and subsequently, his daughters also informed him such facts but he did not ask anybody about such incident. He further stated that due to such incident he had affirmed belief that Purna Chand Tripura, the appellant herein, may be involved in the said incident.
[23] During cross he further stated that he did not disclose to darogababu in his oral Ejahar that "He strongly suspected Purna Chand Tripura in respect of such incident or the facts relating to the sister of Purna Chand Tripura that his sister Lakuti fled away with one Bishu Debbarma and subsequently, after two months she left the house of Bishu Debbarma and thereafter, Purna Chand Tripura threatened his daughter on the road that he would kill her as she was involved in the incident of marriage of Lakuti." During cross he also stated that he stated to darogababu in his oral Ejahar that "He believed that somebody had killed his daughter after conducting rape on her and left her in the jungle.
[24] PW-13 Smt. Rabi Kanya Murasing is wife of the informant and the mother of the victim. She stated that she have two sons and two daughters including Payel. She further stated that in the last Jyastha one Wednesday at about 08:00 AM her daughter Payel Murasing went to Kumbapara by riding a bicycle to collect vegetables where her husband was engaged in 'Jhum' cultivation and thereafter, at about 12:00 noon her daughter left that place but subsequently, did not return back to their house and on that night they searched her daughter but could not find her anywhere and on the following day i.e. on Thursday at noon her elder daughter Mangalsree found her daughter lying dead in a lunga of the Page 11 of 31 rubber garden of Chandra Mohan Debbarma and after hearing hue and cry of her elder daughter, herself and other local people also came there and found her daughter lying naked and suspected that she was murdered after committing rape. She further stated that they suspected that Purna Chand Tripura murdered her daughter as because prior to such incident, he also threatened her daughter to kill her on suspicion that her daughter was involved in an incident when sister of appellant Bishu Kanya @ Lakuti fled away with another Bishu Debbarma and married him.
[25] PW-22 Smt. Mangalsree Murasing is the full blood elder sister of the victim i.e. Payel Murasing(deceased) and the informant Bijoy Murasing is her father. She stated that her father used to reside at Kumbapara erecting a makeshift shelter home (Tong Ghar) in connection with 'Jhum' cultivation being performed there and the other family members reside at Kukicharra. She further stated that previous year on 07.06.2017(Wednesday) in the morning at about 08:00 AM her sister Payel Murasing left home taking meal for her father riding a bicycle and as a routine affair whenever her sister went to her father taking meals and her sister used to stay there for sometime extending helping hand to her father and then returned back home but she did not return back by the late evening and she inquired the matter from her father over mobile phone when her father told that her sister left for home at about 12:00 PM itself and immediately they started search but could not find her sister that night.
[26] She also stated that she suspected that one Purna Chand Tripura of their locality had committed the crime that few months before the incident the sister of Purna Chand Tripura namely Bishu Kanya Tripura @ Lakuti had eloped with one boy Bishu Debbarma of Chandul Noyabari but his sister returned back after two months. She further stated that her sister was a friend of Lakuti and Purna Chand Tripura suspected Page 12 of 31 that her sister was also involved in the elopement of his sister and after return back of his sister Purna Chand Tripura threatened her sister to teach a lesson.
[27] PW-7 Udai Murasingh is the son of the informant and the elder brother of the victim. He stated that on 07.06.2017 in the morning at about 08:00 AM his younger sister Payel Murasing went to Kumbapara the work place where his father was working for the purpose of assisting him in 'Jhum' cultivation and reached there at about 09:30 AM and thereafter, she returned back from that place at about 12:30 PM but she did not return back to the house till 08:00/09:00 PM when his elder sister Mangalsree informed his father about such fact when his father told that his sister left that place at noon at about 12:30 PM. He further stated that at night he himself, his sister, brother and his mother along with other villagers started searching his sister in various places but could not find her anywhere and on the following day morning, they also informed such incident to the other villagers and again started searching his sister in various places. He also stated that at the time of searching his elder sister Mangalsree found his sister lying in a lunga of the rubber garden of Chandra Mohan Debbarma and also raised alarm when he and other co-villagers also went there and found his sister Payel Murasing was lying in half naked condition and her wearing apparel was torned and her neck was tied by her 'Urna' and her mouth was gagged with part of such 'Urna' and he also found some blood stain on her nail and thereafter, they informed such incident to Taibandal Out post over phone.
[28] He further stated that about 5/6 months prior to such incident the sister of Purna Chand Tripura namely Bishu Kanya in one occasion fled away along with one Bishu Debbarma and also married him but after 2/3 months of their marriage she again returned back to her house from the Page 13 of 31 house of Bishu Debbarma and on that issue Purna Chand Tripura in one occasion threatened his sister to kill her as he suspected that his sister was involved in the marriage of his sister Bishu Kanya & Lakuti as his sister was also had a friendship with Bishu Kanya as a result of which they suspected Purna Chand Tripura may be involved the murder of Payel Murasing.
[29] PW-29 Bishu Kumar Murasing stated that on 07.06.2017 (Wednesday) in the morning his younger sister namely Payel Murasing went to meet his father at 'Jhum' cultivation site riding a bicycle and the said 'Jhum' cultivation site is about 9 miles from their house. He further stated that he had gone on his work in the rubber plantation where he worked as a tapper and in the noon period at about 01:00 PM he returned back and learnt from his another sister Mangalsree Murasing that Payel had not returned back. He further stated that they started looking for her but did not find her that day and on the following day also, the search continued and at about 01:00 PM his sister Mangalsree found the dead body of Payel in a lunga in the rubber garden of one Chandra Mohan and hearing the hue and cry he also went to the spot. He also stated that he saw the dead body of his sister which was in a naked condition and shortly thereafter the police arrived there and the dead body was brought to Melaghar P.S. [30] He further stated that Payel and Lakuti (sister of Purna Chand) were close friend to each other and few days before the incident Lakuti had eloped with a boy and returned back to her home but without marrying that boy and Purna Chand suspected that his sister Payel had assisted Lakuti in her elopement and on account of that Purna Chand had threatened his sister Payel to teach a lesson. He also stated that he had a Page 14 of 31 doubt that Purna Chand has killed his sister after raping her on account of said enmity.
[31] PW-23 Amar Manik Jamatia stated that before this incident in the month of Agrahayana the sister of Purna Chand Tripura namely Bishu Kanya Tripura had eloped with one Bishu Debbarma and married her but two months thereafter due to differences between them Bishu Kanya returned back to her parental home and Bishu Kanya and Payel were close friends and Purna Chand suspected that Payel had played a role in the elopement of his sister in this regard Purna Chand had threatened Payel to teach a lesson.
[32] PW-8 Ramesh Noatia stated that the informant of this case Bijoy Murasing is his grandfather and deceased Payel Murasing is his aunt. He further stated that after the dead of Payel Murasing police arrested Purna Chand Tripura in connection with this case and during interrogation Purna Chand Tripura confessed that he committed murder of Payel Murasing and he also identified the place where he committed such offence and at that time he and other villagers also accompanied police personnel. He also stated that that time the member of Gamaicharra ADC village namely, Parimal Debbarma, Chakbuila Murasing were also remain present there and that time appellant Purna Chand Tripura also informed police that on the date of incident he committed rape upon Payel Murasing in two times and thereafter killed her by tied her neck with her 'Urna'.
[33] He further stated that after the said incident, his aunt Mangalsree informed him that prior to such incident Purna Chand Tripura also threatened Mangalsree and Payel to kill them as because prior to such incident in one occasion his sister Lakuti @ Bishu Kanya fled away along with Bishu Debbarma and after two months she again returned back to her Page 15 of 31 house. He further stated that Purna Chand Tripura suspected that Payel Murasing and Mangalsree were involved in the incident of marriage in between Bishu Kanya and Bishu Debbarma as they were friend of each other.
[34] PW-11 Jyasthya Murasing stated that on 08.06.2017 in the morning at about 10:00/11:00 AM he went to the house of Paresh Mani Murasing to collect milk and that time Purna Chand Tripura also came to his house with an electric board and requested Paresh Mani Murasing to repair of such electric board when Paresh Mani told him that he is busy as he was searching Payel Murasing. He again stated that as per the request of the mother of Paresh mani Murasing he and Purna Chand Tripura took their meal in the house of Paresh Mani Murasing and then left that house and subsequently, he came to learn that the dead body of Payel Murasing was recovered from the rubber garden of Chandra Mohan Debbarma.
[35] PW-15 Deepraj Roy stated that on 13.06.2017 as per direction of SDM, Sonamura to attend at Melaghar P.S for the purpose of recording disclosure statement of one appellant and accordingly, he went therein at about 02:00 PM and at that time in his presence and other two witnesses O/C Melaghar P.S Inspector Manindra Debnath recorded the disclosure statement of one appellant namely Purna Chand Tripura and at the time of recording of such statement Purna Chand Tripura voluntarily stated that on 07.06.2017 at noon at about 12:00 PM while Payel Murasing was returning from Kumbapara he(appellant) detained her(victim) in the rubber garden of one Chandra Mohan Debbarma and also gave a marriage proposal wherein she(victim) accepted such proposal when he(appellant) committed sexual intercourse with Payel Murasing in two times and in the second time said Payel Murasing became annoyed and also stated that she would inform such incident to her family members and other villagers and at that Page 16 of 31 time, he strangulated Payel Murasing by her wearing 'Urna' on her neck and also committed murder to her and subsequently, took the dead body to a lunga and thrown her to the lunga at a distance 100 to 150 meters from his house and on the next day, at noon he went to the house of one Pareshmani Murasing with an electric board and also requested him to repair the said electric board and that at that time one Jyastha Mohan was also remained present there. But Pareshmani Murasing refused to repair such electric board because he was busy in searching Payel Murasing who was missing since 07.06.2017 and that thereafter he went to a grocery of shop for purchase a packet of biscuit and he also told that he would able to identify the place where he committed murder of Payel Murasing and that he was brought to the place of occurrence where he pointed out the place where he committed the murder of Payel Murasing. He further stated that the entire episode of recording disclosure statement and pointing out the place of occurrence were recorded in videography as well still photograph and after recording such disclosure statement he put his signature in the disclosure statement as well as pointing out the place of occurrence and identified his signatures marked Exhibit-9/1 and Exhibit-10/1.
[36] PW-16 Jiban Debnath stated that he has a Studio at Melaghar market name and styled as 'Payel Studio' and on 09.06.2017 as per instruction of O/C Melaghar P.S he conducted in videography of the post- mortem examination of one Payel Murasingh at Melaghar Hospital morgue and after recording the entire process of post-mortem examination he prepared the CD cassette of such video recording and also handed over the same to Inspector Manindra Debnath, O/C Melaghar P.S. He also stated that on the same day who after receiving the same seized two CD discs by preparing a seizure list in presence of him and other witnesses and also obtained his signature in the seizure list as witness and identified hi Page 17 of 31 signature marked Exhibit-11/1. He further stated that he also submitted a certificate under Section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act and identified the said certificate and his signatures marked Exhibit-12, Exhibit-12/1 and Exhibit-12/2. The witness also identified the said CD disc prepared by him and his signature on the sealed envelope of the said CD disc marked Exhibit-M.O7 and Exhibit-7/1.
[37] PW-28 Biswajit Laskar @ Tapash stated that on 13.06.2017 he was working as a Photographer in the shop of one Jiban Debnath at Melaghar market and that day at about 10:00/11:00 AM the shop owner directed him to go to Melaghar P.S as there was a call therefrom and accordingly, taking his video camera he went there when the O/C asked him to conduct the video photography of the examination of one appellant Purna Chand Tripura and that time in addition to O/C, two other persons were present there but he did not identify them and accordingly, he conducted the vidoegraphy of the examination of said Purna Chand Tripura by the O/C. He further stated that at about 02:00 PM they all including said appellant Purna Chand went a place at Gamaicharra where he conducted the video photography of the narration of chain of events by Purna Chand and after return to the P.S, O/C asked him to develop the CD of the footage and provide him and accordingly, same day in the evening at around 07:00/07:30 PM developing two CDs of the recorded footage, he handed over it to the O/C which were seized in a sealed packet by the I/O preparing a seizure list and he put his signature in the seizure list and identified his signature marked Exhibit-9/2.
[38] PW-26 Sujit Sutradhar stated that on 16.06.2017 the I/O Inspector Manindra Debnath, O/C Melaghar P.S seized 25 nos. of photographs in presence of him at the P.S itself produced by one Biswajit Laskar @ Tapash(photographer) by preparing a seizure list wherein he put Page 18 of 31 my signature as a witness and identified his signature marked Exhibit15/1. The witness also identified the seized photographs (25 nos.) marked ExhibitM.O8 (1 to 25).
[39] PW-27 Asish Datta is the another seizure witness and he stated in the same manner like PW-26 and he identified his signature in the seizure list marked Exhibit-15/2. The witness also identified the seized photographs (25 nos.) marked Exhibit-M.O. 8(1to 25).
[40] PW-4 Satya Ranjan Das stated that on 13.06.2017 he along with SI Subash Datta and constable Joynal Miah brought the appellant Purna Chand Tripura to Melaghar Hospital for his medical examination and on that day, the appellant Purna Chand Tripura was examined by Dr. Rajesh Das and after examination he handed over two envelop to him for handed over the same to the I/O of this case and he handed over the same to the I/O who after receiving the same seized by preparing seizure list in presence of him and other witness and also obtained his signature in the seizure list. He identified his signature in the seizure list 13.06.2017 marked Exhibit8/1.
[41] PW-5 Ashif Ahammed Sarkar stated that on 13.06.2017 the I/O of this case seized one CD cassette produced by Videographer Biswajit Laskar in presence of him at Melaghar P.S by preparing seizure list and also obtained his signature in the seizure list as witness. He identified his signature in the seizure list dated 13.06.2017 marked Exhibit-9/1. He further stated that such video recording was done at the time of recording of disclosure statement of appellant Purna Chand Tripura and he identified the said CD cassette seized by darogababu wherein he put his signature as witness. The witness identified the seized CD cassette under sealed cover marked Exhibit -M.O-7 and his signature marked Exhibit- M.O7/1.
Page 19 of 31[42] PW-17 Kanika Sarkar stated that on 09.06.2017 at about 01:00 PM she identified the dead body of Payel Murasing at Melaghar Hospital morgue during post-mortem examination and at the time of post- mortem examination the entire process of PM examination was videographed by videographer Jiban Debnath and after post-mortem examination the attending Doctor handed over the viscera of deceased Payel Murasingh and her vaginal swab, anal swab, pubic hair, blood sample etc. and the wearing apparel of the deceased to her for handing over the same to the I/O of this case. She further stated that she handed over the said articles to S.I Prabhat Ch. Shil who seized the same articles by preparing seizure list in presence of witnesses and also obtained her signature in the seizure list being a producer of those articles. She identified her signature in the seizure list dated 09.06.2017 marked Exhibit5/3. She further stated that Inspector Manindra Debnath also seized two CD cassettes by preparing seizure list in presence of her and also obtained her signature in the seizure list and identified her signature marked Exhibit11/2 and also her signature on the envelop of such CD cassette marked Exhibit M.O.07. The witness also identified her signature marked Exhibit7/2 and also the wearing apparel of deceased Payel Murasing marked Exhibit M.O.-4.
[43] PW-18 Smt. Parswati Sen stated that on 13.06.2017 at night at about 09:30/10:00 PM as per instruction of Dr. Rajesh Das of Melaghar Hospital she collected Blood sample of one Purna Chand Tripura at Melaghar Hospital and at that time another staff Nurse Chinmoy Acharjee was also remained present therein and after collection of the blood sample she handed over the same to Dr. Rajesh Das and the blood sample authentication form was duly filled in by Dr. Rajesh Das and also obtained her signature as witness and Purna Chand Tripura also put his signature in Page 20 of 31 the said form as well as witness Chinmoy Acharjee. She identified her signature marked Exhibit-13/1.
[44] PW-19 Smt. Chinmayee Acharjee stated in the same manner like PW18. She identified her signature marked Exhibit13/2 and also identified appellant Purna Chand Tripura in the Court in the dock.
[45] PW-35 Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath stated that on 09.06.2017 Dr. Rajesh Das and Dr. Sanjoy Kr. Saha were also posted as Medical Officer at Melaghar Hospital and that day as a team they conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of one Payel Murasing (identified by Pushpa Pada Murasing, Ranjit Murasing and women constable 11655 Kanika Sarkar) brought in connection with Melaghar P.S case No. 022/2017 and the time of the postmortem examination was between 01:00 PM to 02:30 PM on 09.06.2017. During examination they found following:
External appearances Decomposed, blebes and blister, maggots appeared. Ligature mark with cloth was found in the middle of the neck encircling the whole leg, a tied knot found behind on the middle of the neck, on released ligature mark form in the same side of ligature.
[46] He also stated that Hymen was ruptured (old or fresh cannot be ascertained due to putrefaction process of the tissue). He further stated that Ligature mark with cloth was found in the middle of the neck encircling the whole leg, a tied knot found behind on the middle of the neck, on released ligature mark form in the same side of ligature. On dissection subcutaneous margin of ligature are found echymatic. Hyoid bone intact. He further stated that Hymen was ruptured(old or fresh cannot be ascertained due to putrefaction process of the tissue) and vaginal swab and viscera handed over to the police personnel and as per their opinion Page 21 of 31 that the cause of death is instantaneous due to suffocation and the nature is homicidal and time since that is more than 26 hours. He further stated that in the report a note was also given stating that it cannot be excluded that there was any sexual event had not occurred but the final opinion may be given after forensic examination.
[47] He has further deposed that the post-mortem report was prepared in two sheets by Dr. Rajesh Das in his own handwriting putting his signature and he identified the post-mortem report (two sheets) marked Exhibit-22 series. He also identified the signature of Dr. Rajesh Das marked Exhibit-22/1, his signature marked Exhibit-22/2 and the signature of Dr. Sanjoy Kr. Saha marked Exhibit-22/3. He further stated that at the time of post-mortem examination the following viscera samples of the deceased were collected preparing a list wherein he along with other two Doctors of the team have affixed his signature i.e. Liver, stomach with content, kidney, spleen, NS, vaginal swab, anal swab, pubic hair and blood sample and he identified the list of the viscera samples marked Exhibit-23. He identified the signature of Dr. Rajesh Das marked Exhibit-23/1, his signature marked Exhibit23/2 and the signature of Dr. Sanjoy Kr. Saha marked Exhibit23/3. He further stated that after receiving the forensic report No. SFSL/445/17/TOX/184/17/5509 in connection with above mentioned P.S case their team formed the final opinion as follows that it can be concluded that sexual intercourse has been occurred and the death was due to suffocation caused by ligature around neck which was homicidal in nature and the final opinion report was prepared by Dr. Rajesh Das. He identified the final opinion report marked Exhibit-24 and the signature of Dr. Rajesh Das marked Exhibit-24/1 and his signature marked Exhibit-24/2 and the signature of Dr. Sanjoy Kr. Saha marked Exhibit-24/3.Page 22 of 31
[48] He further stated that on 09.06.2017 in the night he was on duty in the emergency hours when at 11:10 PM police produced appellant Purna Chand Tripura with a request to conduct medical examination with regard to scratch mark available in his throat region and to ascertain as to whether it is a nail scratch mark or not and he conducted the examination and found that an abrasion about 5 cm long in front region of the neck at the level thyroid cartilage and the same appears to be about 48 hours old. He also stated that the injury resembles a mark caused by a tiny sharp object or sharp nail and identified the medical examination report prepared by him marked Exhibit-25(as a whole).
[49] PW-37 Dr. Rajesh Das stated that on 13.06.2017 at around 09:30 PM police produced one person namely Purna Chand Tripura in connection with Melaghar P.S case No.022/2017 with a request to conduct potency test and medical examination of the person. He further stated that during examination he found the marks of identification as one black mole on right side of the neck and two black moles on left forearm of the parson. He further stated that the police personnel revealed the history of the case as that on 07.06.2017 at about 0800 hours, daughter of the complainant Payel Murasing went out of her house towards Kumbacharra for 'Jhum' cultivation and after reaching Kumbacharra she worked with her father and at about 1230 hours she proceeded to return to her house at Kukicharra riding her bicycle after collecting some forest vegetables. But till at about 2030 hours she did not return back to her house and then the parents and other relatives started searching for her but could not find her and on the following day morning i.e. on 08.06.2017 the parents of the missing girl and other relatives started searching again when at about 1300 hours the dead body of Payel Murasing was recovered at East Gamaicharra in the rubber garden of one Chandra Mohan Debbarma and that complainant had Page 23 of 31 started that some unknown miscreants had committed rape upon her and that murdered her and fled away leaving the dead body in the jungle.
[50] He further stated that on 09.06.2017 he was the member of the team of Doctors who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Payel Murasing in connection with above stated case and after post-mortem examination he prepared the PM report (2 sheets) in his own handwriting putting his signatures along with two Doctors of the team namely Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath and Dr. Sanjoy Kr. Saha and the report identified marked Exhibit-22 series and his signature marked Exhibit22/1. He also stated that same day after the post-mortem examination the viscera sample of the deceased Payel Murasing were collected and handed over to the police for forensic examination by preparing a list and identified the list prepared by him and his signature marked Exhibit-23 and Exhibit23/1. He further stated that on 13.06.2017 the alleged appellant Purna Chand Tripura was produced at the Hospital in connection with above stated police case with a request to collect his blood sample and accordingly, on the prescribed blood sample authentication Form the photograph of Purna Chand Tripura pasted and was attested by him putting his signature in presence of two staff Nurse of their Hospital and after completing the formalities the blood sample of the person was collected obtained his (Purna) signature as well as his right and left thumb impression and identified his signature and the sample of authentication Form marked Exhibit-13/3 and 13/4.
[51] PW-30 Dr. Subhankar Nath stated that on 26.07.2017 the Director of TSFSL Dr. H. K. Pratihari forward the report and remnants of exhibits to the forwarding authority vide No. SFSL445 / 17 / Tox / 184 / 17 /5509 dated 26.07.2017 and he identified the forwarding report bearing signature of Dr. H. K. Pratihari marked Exhibit-18(as a whole). He further Page 24 of 31 stated that on 15.06.2017 the DNA division received 8 exhibits marked F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M from the toxicology division in reference to the case No. Melaghar P.S case No.2017MLG022 dated 08.06.2017 under Section 376/302 of IPC for examination and opinion and the period of examination was 16.06.2017-19.07.2017. The observations of PW-30 are as follows:
"a. A partial female genetic profile generated from Exhibit-F(Source:
Vaginal swab of victim with blood stain) b). A male genetic profile generated from Exhibit-F (Source: Vaginal swab of victim with semen stain) c). No alleles has been amplified except amelogenin from Exhibit-G (Source: Anal swab of victim with blood) indicative of human female origin. d). A male genetic profile generated from Exhibit-G (Source: Anal swab of victim with semen stain.) e). A partial female genetic profile generated from Exhibit-I (Source: blood sample of victim). f). A partial female genetic profile generated from Exhibit-J (I)(Source: red colour panty of victim with blood stain). g). A male genetic profile was generated from Exhibit-J (I) (Source: red colour panty of victim with semen stain).
h). No alleles has been amplified except amelogenin from Exhibit-J (II)(Source: red/ black / white printed gaghra of victim with blood) indicative of human female origin. i). A partial female genetic profile generated from exhibit-J (III) (Source: white colour bra of victim with blood stain). j). A male genetic profile was generated from Exhibit-M (Source: Blood sample of a/p Purna Chand Tripura). k). The alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of Exhibit-F (Source: vaginal swab of victim with semen stain), Exhibit-G (Source: anal swab of victim with semen stain), and Exhibit-J (I)(Source: red colour panty of victim with semen stain) are matches with each other and also matches with the amplified loci of DNA profile of Exhibit-F (Source: Blood sample of a/p Purna Chand Tripura)".
On the basis of the above observations he concluded that:
(a) The contributor of semen stain found in the Exhibits-F (Source:
vaginal swab of victim with the semen stain), Exhibit-G (Source: anal swab of victim with semen stain) and Exhibit-J (I) (Source: red colour panty of victim with semen stain) were originated from the single source Exhibit-M (Source: Blood sample of a/p Purna Chand Tripura).
(b) The blood stain detected in the Exhibits marked-F (Source: Vaginal swab of victim with blood stain), Exhibit-G (Source: anal swab of victim with blood stain), Exhibit-I (Source: blood sample of victim), Exhibit-J (I) (Source: red colour panty of victim with blood stain), Exhibit-J (II) (Source: red/ black/white printed gaghra of victim with blood stain) and Exhibit-J(III) (Source: white colour bra of victim with blood stain) are human female blood. In view of partial amplification it is not possible to Page 25 of 31 compare. He identified the report prepared by him bearing his signatures on every sheets contained in 9(nine) pages including Annexure-A (3 sheets) marked Exhibit-19 series."
[52] PW-33 Monica Debbarma stated that on 15.06.2017 their Department received two sealed packets in connection with Melaghar P.S case No.2017MLG0200 dated 08.06.2017 under Section 376/302 of IPC. Out of the received two sealed packets Box-2 was forwarded to DNA division for examination and opinion and the Box-1 was kept in Toxicology division marked as TOX/184/17(1). Inside the sealed packet (1) there were five plastic containers tied with brown colour adhesive tape and affixed white sticking plaster, written on it deceased name, exhibit descriptions and case reference, also affixed paper slips marked on it Exhibit-A to E. [53] She further stated that the exhibits marked A to D are said to be collected from the body of the deceased Payel Murasing by Medical officer conducting Post-mortem examination and duration of examination was 25.06.2017 to 25.07.2017. The exhibits were extracted and analyzed by colour test and Chromatographic method.
[54] PW-32 SI Pravat Ch. Shil stated that on 08.06.2017 at 1558 hours he received a telephonic information from one Paresh Murasingh of Kupichara to the effect that dead body of Payel Murasingh D/O Bijoy Murasingh was found in a lunga at Gamaichara. He further stated that he entered the information in the GD vide No.25 dated 08.06.2017 and immediately along with other staff proceeded to the spot and reached there at 1715 hours. He also stated that he prepared the inquest report after examining the dead body in presence of the witnesses and the inquest report prepared by him was marked as Exhibit-2 and also his signature on the inquest report marked Exhibit-2/4. He further stated that during Page 26 of 31 investigation he visited the PO and prepared the hand sketch map with separate index and identified the hand sketch map and the index prepared by him which bears his signatures marked Exhibit-20(as a whole) and Exhibit-21(as a whole).
[55] PW-36 Inspector Manindra Debnath is the I/O of this case and deposed that on 1915 hours he proceeded for the P.O and reached there at 2015 hours and found that the dead body of the victim had already been shifted to Melaghar Sub-Divisional Hospital morgue by the 2nd officer of their P.S SI Prabhat Ch. Shil. Mr. Shil also informed that he had received an oral complaint from one Bijoy Murasing, the father of the victim and had reduced the said complaint into writing himself and he perused the Ejahar and finding that the same reflected the commission of a cognizable offence, he took up the investigation and examined and recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Paresh Mani Murasing and Udai Murasing wherefrom it was revealed that one Purna Chand Tripura(20), S/O Late Krishna Mohan Tripura of Gamaicharra, P.SMelaghar may be involved with the crime.
[56] He also stated that same day after the post-mortem examination he handed over the dead body to the father of the victim and at 1706 hours he received the SCD along with the seized articles in connection with Melaghar P.S MR No.25/2017 and 26/2017 from SI Prabhat Ch. Shil and at 1905 hours he seized the CDs of the video footage of the postmortem examination from one Jiban Debnath by preparing a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. He identified the seizure list prepared by him marked Exhibit-11 and his signature on the seizure list marked Exhibit-11/3. He also identified the seized CDs (Exhibit-M. O7). He further stated that he collected a certificate as per the provision of 65(B) of the Indian evidence Act from the photographer namely Jiban Page 27 of 31 Debnath examining and recording his statement under Section-161 of Cr.P.C. He also stated that on 09.06.2017 on 2150 hours he again raided the house of appellant Purna Chand Tripura and finding him available arrested him in connection with the instant case and on being produced by the appellant himself he recovered and seized one red and green colour gamcha and one Micromax Mobile from inside the house of appellant by preparing a seizure list in presence of witnesses. He further stated he produced the appellant at Melaghar Sub-Divisional Hospital to conduct medical examination and after conducting medical examination and the M.O opined that the scratch mark found on the front side of the neck of the appellant resembled a mark caused by tiny sharp object or by sharp nail.
[57] He further stated that on 06.07.2017 he collected the Spot Visit Report prepared by SFSL mobile team who had visited the P.O and on 27.07.2017 he also collected the SFSL report and took up the matter with the team of Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination for giving final opinion as to cause of death of deceased and after perusing the same, the final opinion was given in following words: "It can be concluded that sexual intercourse had been occurred and the death was due to suffocation caused by ligature around neck which is homicidal in nature. "
[58] In course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in this case the evidence of prosecution suffers from various infirmities and on the face of evidence on record, there is no scope to presume that the appellant to be guilty and moreso, none of the witnesses of the prosecution did see to commit the offence by the appellant as alleged by the prosecution and furthermore, the alleged story raised by the prosecution that the appellant threatened the victim for allurement of his sister with another person is totally false and concocted for which no Page 28 of 31 inference can be drawn that the present appellant has committed the offence on the alleged date, is nothing but a dare false hood story and furthermore, the prosecution in this case also failed to prove the circumstantial evidence by showing any chain of circumstances.
[59] On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the prosecution in this case has been able to prove the charge levelled against the appellant. It is further submitted that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the DNA report and also the report of PM examination, it has been clearly established that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased and prayed for awarding exemplary punishment to the appellant in this case.
[60] Here in the case at hand, we have discussed the evidence on record of the prosecution in detail. Now we are to conclude our decision on the basis of material evidence on record. The parents, sister and brother of the deceased and some other witnesses stated that the appellant threatened the deceased on the ground that his sister eloped with one person and after some days the sister of the appellant returned back to home and for that the appellant suspected the deceased for assisting the sister of the appellant in escaping with one person and for that he threatened to kill the deceased. The statement made by the appellant before police, Executive Magistrate and other independent witnesses that he committed murder of the deceased after committing rape upon her.
[61] The DNA profiling report clearly establishes the link of the appellant with the alleged murder of the deceased after commission of rape. The PM examination report of the deceased conducted by Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath and others clearly established that the deceased prior to Page 29 of 31 her death was subjected to sexual intercourse and death was due to suffocation caused by ligature around neck which was homicidal in nature and also the observation of Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath after examination of the appellant that an abrasion mark about 5 cm long in front region of the neck of the appellant at the level thyroid cartilage and the same appeared to be about of 48 hours old duration.
[62] The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-7, PW-8, PW-13, PW-22 during their examination very specifically stated that the appellant in one occasion threatened the victim to kill her on the ground that his sister escaped with a person and married him and after some days the sister of appellant returned back to home and the present appellant suspected that the victim might have assisted the sister of appellant to elope with that boy and for that he threatened to kill her. In this regard the appellant by the trend of cross-examination could not raise any doubt to disbelieve the evidence on record of the said witnesses. Thus, it can be said that there was a bitter relation on that issue in between the appellant and the victim of this case prior to the alleged occurrence but this evidence itself is not sufficient to believe beyond reasonable that the appellant herein committed murder of the deceased after having committed rape upon her.
[63] Now in respect of disclosure statement made by the convict- appellant as alleged by the prosecution in this case it is on record that at the time of making disclosure statement the appellant was under police custody and from the statement of DCM and witness Parimal Debbarma (PW-24) and Sambajoy Tripura(PW-25) and the I/O it appears that in their presence the appellant made disclosure statement and shown the place where the crime was committed. But on perusal of Exhibit-9 and Exhibit- 10 i.e. disclosure statement as well as pointing out memorandum, it appears to us that the same was not recorded properly in accordance with Page 30 of 31 the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. But from the statement of the witnesses who were present at the time of recording disclosure statement they stated that in course of recording disclosure statement the appellant also stated before them that after committing the offence the appellant on that day in the afternoon went to shop of one Brajendra Murasing for purchase of biscuit and this part of evidence has been corroborated by PW- 10 and the son of PW-10 Sri Pradip Murasing (PW-12) during recording their evidence before the Court.
[64] Now in respect of DNA report, PW-30 during his evidence before the Court in the concluding portion opined that, "the contributor of semen stain found in the Exhibits-F(Source: vaginal swab of victim with the semen stain), Exhibit-G (Source: anal swab of victim with semen stain) and Exhibit-J(I) (Source: red colour panty of victim with semen stain) were originated from the single source Exhibit-M (Source: Blood sample of a/p Purna Chand Tripura)." Decomposed, blebes and blister, maggots appeared. Ligature mark with cloth was found in the middle of the neck encircling the whole leg, a tied knot found behind on the middle of the neck, on released ligature mark form in the same side of ligature. As per report of expert matching of blood sample of appellant with the vaginal swab of the victim with the semen stain, anal swab of victim with semen stain and red colour panty of victim with semen stain.
[65] Here in the case at hand, after going through the evidence on record and also after hearing the argument put forward by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also after going through the PM examination report and DNA report submitted by the expert, a chain is established regarding involvement of the appellant with the alleged crime on that relevant day and it appears to us that the prosecution in this case has been able to establish that due to previous enmity the appellant in custody on the Page 31 of 31 alleged day first of all committed rape upon the victim and thereafter, caused her death by strangulation with a 'Urna' and after that to save himself threw the dead body into a lunga rubber plantation belonging to one Chandra Mohan Debbarma.
[66] In our ultimate analysis, it is crystal clear that there is no reason as to why the continuity of the chain of circumstances and the complaint made against the appellant to be disbelieved. The judgments cited by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; to establish the case of the appellant, do not support the facts and circumstances with the present case. All the witnesses supported the entire case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence by the appellant herein. Hence, the conviction and sentence as held by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura, in connection with S.T. (T-
1) 08 of 2017 against the convict-appellant, namely, Purna Chand Tripura, stands affirmed.
[66] In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE A.Ghosh