Delhi District Court
State vs Rishi Kanojia on 20 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - III (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 19/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0532202006
FIR No. 407/2006
PS Preet Vihar
Under Section 506/302/306 IPC
State Versus Rishi Kanojia
Rishi Kanojia S/o Sant Lal
R/o 58-A , Gali No. 13, Sarojini Park
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
Date of Institution of Case : 06.10.2006
Date on which judgment Reserved : 08.7.2010
Date on which judgment delivered : 20.7.2010
JUDGMENT :
The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 23.6.2006 at about 5 PM SI Anant Kumar received DD No. 24A and reached at House No. A-7 Gali No. 5 Jagatpuri, Delhi on an information that a fire has broken out in the house. On reaching there he was informed that injured Rajni had been removed to Dr. Hedgwar Hospital. He accordingly went there and met the victim who was declared fit for statement. He recored her FIR No. 543/2005 1 of 24 statement in the presence of the doctor and also of her sister. In the said statement the injured alleged that she was known to accused Rishi Kanojia since last about one year who used to love her and wanted to marry her but her parents were opposing to the marriage and she too did not like him. She further alleged that for the past 6-7 months, accused was harassing her and was threatening her and was further forcing to marry him. She further alleged that on 23.6.2006 at about 4.15 PM when she was alone at her house, then he forcibly entered the house and when she asked him to go out, accused started saying that he wanted to love her and would marry her. She further stated that in order to dissuade him and so that the accused go away, to frighten him, she poured kerosene oil upon her and lit up a matchstick but in the process, her clothes caught fire and she started burning. She and the accused tried to extinguish the fire but by then her body had caught fire and her front portion got burnt. She further stated that she had put herself upon fire only to frighten the accused and to make him go away from the house.
2. On the basis of the said statement, the present case was registered under Section 309 IPC. During the investigation and on 26.6.2006 while the injured was admitted at Safderjung Hospital, on her request, IO got recorded her statement U/S 164 FIR No. 543/2005 2 of 24 Cr. PC before the Ld. MM. In the said statement she clearly made accusation against the accused stating that when she refused to accept her proposal for marriage, accused poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. On the basis of said statement the FIR was converted to Section 307 IPC. The injured succumbed to her injuries on 27.6.2006 and as such the FIR was again converted to that under Section 302 IPC. The accused was apprehended at the spot by the two police constables who were on beat duty nearby.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused after completion of investigation for the offences punishable under Section 452/302/506 IPC.
4. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions and on considering the material placed on record, vide order dt. 28.10.2006, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 506/302/306 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all. PW1 Rajender Kumar was the neighbour of the injured who had first FIR No. 543/2005 3 of 24 reached the spot and had got the injured admitted at Dr. Hedgwar Hospital. PW2 Ct. Rajvir Singh was the Duty constable at Safderjung Hospital who intimated PS Preet Vihar about the death of the deceased. PW3 Surender Singh Manchanda and PW4 Inderjit Kaur were respectively the father and mother of the deceased. Both deposed that at the time of alleged incident, they were at Amritsar to mourn the death of their aunt and were informed about the incident on 23.6.2006 at about 5.30 PM by their daughter Sonu on which they returned back to Delhi and met the deceased at the hospital where she told them that she had been put on fire by the accused.
PW5 SI Mahesh Kumar - Draftsman had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW5/A . PW6 Ct. Shiv Om had taken the photographs of the spot which are Ex.PW6/A1 to A12 and he proved their negatives as Ex.PW6/B1 to B12.
PW7 Sonu Dhamija was the elder sister of the deceased who reached the spot on receiving the information and had then gone to Dr. Hedgwar Hospital and met the deceased. She too deposed that she was told by the deceased that she was set on fire by the accused. She narrated the another incident when the deceased had come to her office at Delhi University where the accused had followed her.
FIR No. 543/2005 4 of 24 PW8 Dr. Vandana Malhotra had prepared the MLC of the deceased at Dr. Hedgwar Hospital and proved it as Ex.PW8/A . In her presence the statement of the deceased was also recorded on which she made endorsement Ex.PW8/B and proved the statement as Ex.PW8/C. She also deposed that since both the hands of the deceased were badly burnt, the impression of her left leg toe was taken on her statement. PW9 Dr. Sushma proved the MLC of the accused as Ex.PW9/A . PW10 Dr. Prem Kumar proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW10/A . PW11 HC Om Prakash was the Duty Officer who recorded the present FIR and proved its copy as Ex.PW11/A .
PW12 Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi was the Ld. MM who recored the statement of the deceased U/S 164 Cr. PC which is Ex.PW12/C and proved the other documents related to it as Ex.PW12/A , PW12/B and PW12/D. PW13 Ct. Amit was the constable who had reached the spot on finding the smoke coming out from the house at A-7 Jagatpuri, Delhi and had apprehended the accused alongwith PW16 Ct. Surender.
PW14 Kamaljeet had identified the dead body of the deceased vide memo Ex.PW14/A . PW15 Ins. Dal Chand was FIR No. 543/2005 5 of 24 the subsequent IO who got prepared the scaled site plan and prepared the charge sheet.
PW17 SI Anant Kumar was the Io of the case who deposed about the investigation done by him. He also proved the statement of the deceased as Ex.PW17/B , ruqqa as Ex.PW17/C, site plan as Ex.PW17/D, seizure memo of various articles collected from the spot as Ex.PW17/E, arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW17/F, his personal search memo as Ex.PW17/G, his application seeking permission of the doctor to record statement of the deceased U/S 164 Cr. PC as Ex.PW17/H and an application for recording statement U/S 164 Cr. PC as Ex.PW17/J. He further proved copy of the statement as Ex.PW17/K , copy of DD No. 3A dt. 28.6.2006 regarding death of the deceased as Ex.PW17/L, brief facts as Ex.POW17/M, death form as Ex.PW17/N and the application for conducting postmortem as Ex.PW17/P and the receipt of the articles worn by the deceased which were given to her relative, as Ex.PW17/Q. PW18 Shri BC Purkait - Sr. Scientific Officer proved the FSL Report as Ex.PW18/A . PW19 HC Johnson was the MHC(M) who proved the entries made in Register No. 19 as Ex.PW19/A .
FIR No. 543/2005 6 of 24
6. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. He claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the parents of the deceased and her sister in order to save Paramvir Singh who was the brother of the deceased, who often used to beat her.
7. The accused examined three witnesses in his defence. DW1 Shri Ajeet Singh - Asstt. Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. was summoned to prove the call record of phone No. 9891163576 but the same were stated to have been destroyed. He proved the copy of the Licence Agreement as Ex.DW1/A .
DW2 Shri Sanjeev Lakra was the Nodal Officer from Reliance Communications who proved the original application form of connection No. 9312163099 in the name of Vikas Kanojia . He proved the Certificate as Ex.DW2/A and an attested copy of the form as Ex.DW2/B . He also proved the customer application form in the name of Kamaljeet in respect of the mobile connection No. 9312968081 as Ex.DW2/C and the certificate U/S 65(1) & (b) of the Indian Evidence At as Ex.DW2/D. FIR No. 543/2005 7 of 24 DW3 Shri Shobhnath Yadav, Sub-Divisional engineer, MTNL, proved the call details in respect of land line phone No. 22059107 as Ex.DW3/A and also of the certificate U/S 65(1) &
(b) of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW3/B .
8. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Shri KS Singh - Advocate for the accused and have carefully gone through the case file.
9. The present case of the prosecution is mainly based on the dying declaration made by the deceased. Infact there are two dying declarations of the deceased on the record. The first declaration was made on the date when she was admitted to the hospital, i.e. 23.6.2006 and the second declaration was infact a statement recorded U/S 164 Cr. PC by the Ld. MM dt. 26.6.2006. In the first statement dt. 23.6.2006, the deceased stated that she got burnt accidentally while she had poured the kerosene oil upon her to scare the accused so that he may go out of the house. In the second statement dt. 26.6.2006, she specifically alleged that the accused poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. Both the dying declarations have been challenged by the accused.
FIR No. 543/2005 8 of 24
10. It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused that in the first statement dt. 23.6.2006 an interpolation has been made by the IO by using the word 'zabardasti' in order to implicate the accused which is at point X on Ex.PW17/B . In the cross-examination PW17/IO denied that this word was later on added by him and that it was not written in the presence of the doctor. The doctor in whose presence this statement was recorded, i.e. PW8, in this respect deposed that this word was not recorded in her presence otherwise she would have initialed over it. According to PW17 and PW8, this statement was recorded in their presence and in the presence of elder sister of the deceased namely PW7 who categorically denied that any such statement was recorded in her presence. It was argued that on one hand, it has been proved on record that the said statement has been interpolated and has, thus, lost its authenticity and secondly the said statement has been disowned by the real sister of the deceased and hence, no reliance can be placed upon it.
11. In my opinion the mere fact that PW7 had disowned the said statement does not create any doubt about the validity and genuineness of this statement as the other independent witness, i.e, PW8 has not only proved the fact of the said statement having been made by the deceased but had also FIR No. 543/2005 9 of 24 attested it under her signatures and seal. As regard the interpolation is concerned, that word 'zabardasti' may not be read in the said statement.
12. As regard the second dying declaration made by the deceased is concerned, it was recorded by the Ld. MM U/S 164 Cr. PC. It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel that the doctor attending the deceased had never certified upon it that she was fit for making the statement. It was further submitted that it was recorded against the guidelines provided in the High Court rules and was not in a question-answer form. Further, the statement was never read over to the maker after it was so recorded. Lastly, it was submitted that as per the testimony of the Ld. MM concerned, PW12, the said statement was recorded in the presence of the IO, his Steno and brother-in-law of the deceased namely Gurvinder Singh and it was also recorded after three days of the incident and when the parents of the deceased had returned back and she was surrounded by all her relatives. Therefore, the possibility of the same having been tutored cannot be ruled out.
13. I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel. The explanation was given by the Ld. MM for inviting the brother-in- law of the deceased while he was recording the statement, to the FIR No. 543/2005 10 of 24 effect that he had showed his apprehension that the Ld. MM may not record anything at the instance of the IO and to be on safer footing, he allowed Gurvinder Singh to be present. Ld. MM was not required to be so cautious and apprehensive of any allegations while discharging his duty. Further there was no explanation for the presence of IO at the time of recording of her statement. The possibility of the deceased having been tutored can also not be ruled out as this statement was in the presence of all the relatives and when they all had opportunity to talk to her.
14. The second statement dt. 26.6.2006 Ex.PW12/C does not inspire confidence and is inconsistent with the facts of the prosecution case. It is recorded in the said statement in the later portion that when the deceased asked him to go away as her parents were not there, he started using force upon her and when the deceased told him not to do so, the accused poured kerosene oil upon her and burnt her on which she cried loudly and then he ran out. This does not explain the true facts. Firstly, as to from where the kerosene oil came. The deceased neither in the first statement nor in the second statement alleged that the accused came to the house with kerosene oil. Secondly, in the first statement, the deceased stated that the accused also tried to save her and extinguished the fire. This explains the burn injuries on FIR No. 543/2005 11 of 24 the hands of the accused, whereas in the second statement she simply stated that the accused fled away after putting her on fire and that does not explain the burn injuries on the hands of the accused. Hence, the second statement does not appear to be authenticated.
15. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment in Kamla Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 374, wherein the deceased made four dying declarations with glaring inconsistency and in one of them she infact indicated the incident as an accident. On that basis, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the conviction .
16. In yet another judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel in S. Paneerselvam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2008(2) JCC 1427, it was held that though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that accused has no power of cross-examination . Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring FIR No. 543/2005 12 of 24 or prompting or an product of imagination . The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. The Hon'ble Apex Court further relied upon the judgment in State of UP Vs. Madan Mohan and others AIR 1989 SC 1519, wherein it was held that where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration , the said declaration cannot be acted upon . Similarly in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1982 SC 839, it was held that where there is more than one statement on the nature of dying declaration , the one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy or reliable, it has to be accepted.
17. In the instant case, as already observed, the possibility of the deceased having been tutored or prompted at the time of making the second dying declaration can not be ruled out. Further more, her second version is against the prosecution case and thirdly, there is material inconsistency in the two statements/declarations. Further more, there is no declaration/certificate of the doctor certifying that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making that statement.
FIR No. 543/2005 13 of 24
18. Similarly, in Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (2) SCC 85, there were three dying declarations, the first two recorded on the date of incident and in the presence of the doctor stating that the deceased was mentally alert. However, in the third declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate recorded after three days of the incident, the deceased alleged that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there were many over writings and manipulations discernible in their statement which create doubt regarding its veracity and correctness. It was also observed that the first statement was also signed by the father of the deceased who did not raised any objection to it. It was also observed that there was silence for three days between the two statements which was not natural and on this ground, the third incriminating dying declaration was not relied upon and the judgment of conviction was set aside.
19. In the instant case as well, the first statement was within the knowledge of the relatives of the deceased but they did not raised any objection and the deceased herself has also not given any explanation for changing her first statement. It may also be noted that PW12 in his cross-examination deposed that he was never told by the IO about the first statement of the FIR No. 543/2005 14 of 24 deceased though this fact has been controverted by the IO himself. In the light of the above discussion , I am of the opinion that the second dying declaration Ex.PW12/C dt. 26.6.2006 cannot be relied upon .
20. As regard the evidence which has come on record, the testimony of few material witnesses is worth reliance. PW1 was the public witness who had summoned the ambulance and had got the deceased admitted at Dr. Hedgwar Hospital. He was a chance witness who passed the house of the deceased per chance. He deposed that no one was present in the house except the girl when he entered inside it nor could he threw any light as to how the deceased sustained burn injuries.
21. As per the prosecution case, the site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of this witness and as also deposed by PW17 but PW1 never deposed about this fact. He also did not deposed that he was present when the official Draftsman was brought to the spot on 17.8.2006. Hence, the evidence of this witness is of no use to the prosecution case.
22. PW3 and PW4 were the parents of the deceased. Admittedly, they were not in Delhi at the time of alleged incident FIR No. 543/2005 15 of 24 and came later on to Delhi after they were informed about the incident. They both deposed that they were told by the deceased that she was burnt by the accused. PW3 further added that the deceased told him that the accused used to harass her for the last six months and wanted to marry her. He denied any knowledge about the accused before the incident. In his cross-examination he put a complete secrecy about his residence phone number or the mobile phone of the deceased and did not provided any details about them despite repeated questioning and went on to say that he got the land line phone of his house disconnected prior to the death of her daughter which appears to be incorrect in view of the call details summoned in defence by Ld. Defence Counsel Ex.DW3/A according to which the said phone was in use even on 24.6.2006. He also could not give any satisfactory reply regarding the lock which was put on the house after the incident and when the deceased was taken to the hospital. He claimed that the lock was belonging to him but could not explain as to from where it came. He specifically deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time in the Court. He was confronted with his previous statement when he deposed that the deceased told him that the accused was harassing her for the last six months. He was further confronted with his previous statement wherein it was recorded that he had called the accused FIR No. 543/2005 16 of 24 2-3 times to his house for advising him. Thus, he appears to have deliberately denied his previous knowledge with the accused.
23. Similarly, PW4 also deposed that the deceased told her that she was burnt by the accused who was married and wanted to marry her. She also deposed that she had seen the accused for the first time in the Court and he was not known to her prior to the incident. She also evaded answers regarding the number of her land line phone or the mobile phone of the deceased. She even denied the police having recorded her statement or interrogated her at any point of time. She was confronted with her previous statement wherein it was recorded that her daughter was 15 years of age and had informed her that Rishi Kanojia used to harass her and wanted to get marry to her forcibly while he was already married and that she in turn informed this fact to her husband who had made the said boy understand when he visited their house and advised him not to visit their house. She denied having stated to the police in her previous statement that when she had gone to Amritsar and her daughter was alone, accused forcibly entered the house, pressurized Rajni to marry with him and on her declining the offer, he poured kerosene oil upon Rajni and set her on fire. Infact she disowned her entire statement U/S 161 Cr. PC in that respect.
FIR No. 543/2005 17 of 24
24. PW7 was another material witness who was the elder sister of the deceased and who had first reached the spot. Her testimony is also controversial. According to her, she received the phone call of one Masterji who resided near the house of the deceased and who informed her that the accused had poured kerosene oil upon Rajni and put her on fire. On reaching the house, she found burn marks and kerosene oil bottle. She accordingly went to the hospital where the deceased told her that the accused had poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire She deposed that the deceased was referred to GTB Hospital but she on her own took her to Safderjung Hospital. In her cross- examination , she deposed that she could not affirm or deny whether the deceased used to talk to the deceased from her own phone. She could not disclose the identity of the Masterji who gave information to her about the incident. She had never given her phone number to him. If that was so, how he could have called her and informed her about the incident. Even the said Masterji has not been cited or examined as a witness in this case and thus, he appears to be a fictitious person . She was confronted with her entire statement recorded U/S 161 Cr. PC which reflects that she made material improvements in her testimony. She was confronted with her previous statement U/S FIR No. 543/2005 18 of 24 161 Cr. PC when she introduced the fact that the accused had followed Rajni to her office on one occasion . She was also confronted when she stated that she told the IO that the deceased told her in the hospital that the accused poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. She was also confronted about her having been told about the incident by Masterji. She was further confronted about her having found kerosene oil bottle and burn marks in the house. She was further confronted when she stated that she told the IO that when she met the deceased in the hospital, she was afraid and told that she was criminally intimidated by the accused not to divulge any fact to anyone. She was further confronted with her previous statement when she denied having stated to the police that the police recorded the statement of Rajni in her presence in the hospital and was further confronted when she denied to have told the police that in the hospital Rajni told her with a view to scare the accused, she poured kerosene oil upon her and tried to set her on fire and in the process she got burnt. Thus, she has made numerous and material improvements in her statement only for the reason that she was an interested witness and wanted to implicate the accused in this case. The testimony of such a witness cannot be relied upon .
FIR No. 543/2005 19 of 24
25. There is yet another person who has not been made witness to this case but whose presence at the spot appears to be there, i.e. brother of the deceased namely Paramvir Singh . It was alleged by Ld. Counsel that it was he who was responsible for the incident as he was against the relationship between the deceased and the accused and in order to shield him the accused has been implicated falsely. Though this defence could not be proved, however, the different versions regarding the presence of Paramvir Singh or his absence from the spot creates a genuine suspicion . PW7 deposed that when she reached home after the incident, her brother was present there. In the same breath she deposed that when she reached her mother's home he was entering the house. PW3 in this respect deposed that on the date of incident, his son arrived at a later stage who could not tell as to from which place of duty he had come. He further deposed that he was unable to say whether his son visited his house on the day of incident or not. PW4 in this regard deposed that soon after the incident, her son was at Sonipat (Haryana) and she was aware of this fact and he returned back at about 5 PM or 6 PM on the date of incident. She further admitted that her son Paramvir Singh did not appeared before any doctor or police official concerning this case after the incident though he had visited the deceased to Safderjung Hospital. IO had even denied any FIR No. 543/2005 20 of 24 knowledge about the fact that the deceased even had any brother named Paramvir Singh and further denied that he ever met him during the investigation . Though he appeared to be an important corroborative witness but he has been kept away from this case for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer or the family members of the deceased.
26. Even the testimony of three police witnesses is not beyond suspicion as several contradictions appeared therein . PW13 Ct. Amit had first reached the spot at about 4.45 PM on hearing some noise and on seeing the smoke coming out. He was with Ct. Surender/PW16. He only deposed that on reaching there they saw one boy coming out having burn injuries on both hands who was apprehended by Ct. Surender and was brought at the picket.
27. PW16 though was with PW13 deposed that on entering the house they saw that a lady was lying burnt with a blanket put over her. There was a crowd already present and one boy out of the crowd started running who was chased and apprehended and whose hands were smeared with kerosene oil and who disclosed his name as Rishi Kanojia . Though he and PW13 were together but they both deposed facts totally FIR No. 543/2005 21 of 24 contradictory to each other, narrating totally different set of facts. PW13 never deposed about the deceased lying there. PW16 introduced a blanket covered upon her and did not deposed that there were any burn injuries on the hands of the accused. PW13 never deposed that there was any crowd present in the house, as deposed by PW16. PW16 also deposed in the cross-examination that the injured had told them about the whereabouts of her brother and parents and that she was taken to the hospital in an ambulance driven by PW1, which fact was never stated by PW13 nor by PW1. He also deposed that the house was locked by the IO which fact was denied by the IO. PW16 was confronted with his previous statement when he deposed that one Rajnder and one Juicewala told him about escaping of the accused.
28. PW17/IO deposed that he did not found any chance prints at the spot and therefore, did not filed SOC visit report. He firstly deposed that he met the parents of the deceased on the same night at about 10 PM but then corrected this fact saying that he met the brother-in-law of the deceased. He recorded the statement of parents of the deceased on 28.6.2006 after the death of the deceased with no plausible explanation was given for the delay. The other material contradictions have already been pointed out herein above during the examination of the material FIR No. 543/2005 22 of 24 witnesses. The appreciation of his testimony shows that the investigation was not up to the mark and there were several loop holes which he failed to plug in .
29. Apart from the aforesaid, it is also worth mentioning, as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the call details of the phone installed in the house of the deceased, Ex.DW3/A it has been noticed that several phone calls used to be made from that phone to the mobile phone of the brother of the accused and some calls were of very long duration . This is suggestive of the fact that the deceased was in continuous touch with the accused and the possibility of the other members of the house also calling the accused cannot be ruled out. This fact contradicts and falsifies the testimony of PW3 and PW4 who deposed that they never knew the accused prior to the incident.
30. The result of the above discussion is that the second statement of the deceased Ex.PW12/C cannot be relied upon , the witnesses examined by the prosecution were all interested witnesses and their testimonies are full of contradictions and improvements and hence, they are not worth reliance. It is also to be noted that certain material witnesses have not even been cited which creates suspicion in the entire prosecution story.
FIR No. 543/2005 23 of 24 According to the first dying declaration of the deceased, she herself had put fire upon her in order to scare the accused. The burn marks on the hands of the accused shows that he tried to save her and also shows that he never intended to kill her. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that it was the accused who burnt the deceased and committed her murder. Hence, in my opinion , the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Rishi Kanojia beyond reasonable doubt. He is accordingly acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 506/302/306 IPC. He is set at liberty. Let he be released from custody if not wanted to be detained in any other case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20th day of July 2010 (SANJAY SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) - III KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI FIR No. 543/2005 24 of 24