Patna High Court
Abdullah Quereshi & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.220 of 2002
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SARAN
===========================================================
Abdullah Quereshi & Anr
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh
Smt. Rina Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: -05-2017
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
29.04.2002, passed by Shri Shyam Nandan Prasad Verma, learned Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 366 of 1988, by which he has convicted appellant Abdullah Qureshi under Section 316 and 323 Indian Penal Code and convicted appellant Khalid Qureshi under Section 323 and 448 Indian Penal Code and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant Abdullah Qureshi to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 316 Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence was passed under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and also sentenced appellant Khalid Qureshi, R.I. for six months under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and R.I. for six months under Section 448 Indian Penal Code and directed that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 2/19 both sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution story as per fardbeyan of Roshan Ara (P.W. 5), wife of Ali Ahmad Qureshi, recorded by Sub Inspector, Ranbir Singh on 03.03.1988 at 12.30 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Maternity Ward, wherein, she has stated that at about 9.A.M. her son, Noor Alam, aged about 8 years playing along with Firoj, aged about 8 years, son of appellant, Abdullah Qureshi in front of her house, a quarrel took place on which her son was chased by the Khalid Qureshi@ Maina (appellant No. 2) and out of fear, Noor Alam ran to her, followed by Khalid Qureshi, holding a hockey stick in his hand. It is also stated that Khalid Qureshi entered into her room and started abusing her, on being objected to by her, Khalid Qureshi dragged out of her house and brought her in the galli and started assaulting her by hockey stick on her back. It is also her case that in the meantime, his father, Abdullah Qureshi, appellant No. 1, also came there, armed with hockey stick and he too started assaulting her. Further prosecution case is that Khalid Qureshi assaulted her on her back multiple times, upon which, she fell down on the ground and she started crying, thereafter, Abdullah Qureshi gave hockey stick blow to her on left elbow and abdomen. It is also her case that at that time, she was carrying a pregnancy of six months and due to blow of hockey stick on her abdomen, she started bleeding and in that condition Khalid Qureshi took out her golden chain from her neck and on hulla, her Dewar Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 3/19 (brother-in-law) Mohammad Qureshi, Son of Gaffar Qureshi and Mumtaz Ali, Ayub, Mohammad Sahabuddin and others reached the at place of occurrence and she was brought to Sadar Hospital, Chapra on a rickshaw, where her treatment was going on.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid, fardbeyan formal F.I.R was lodged and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, cognizance was taken up and, thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions.
4. Defence of the accused is one of total denial of the occurrence and of false implication due to previous enmity.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, they are; P.W. 1, Noor Alam, Son of the informant, P.W. 2, Ayub Ali, P.W. 3, Mohammad Ali Qureshi, husband of informant, P.W. 4 Mumtaj Ali, P.W. 5, Roshan Ara (informant), P.W. 6, Doctor Smt. Jaishree Prasad, who reported the matter to police, P.W. 7 Doctor Jai Kumar Singh, who held post mortem examination on the dead body on the still born child of Ali Ahmad Qureshi and informant, P.W. 8, Ram Swaroop Prasad, a formal witness, who proved Ext. 4 and 5, injury report of Roshan Ara, P.W. 9, Mohammad Nasim, a formal witness, who proved F.I.R. Ext. 6.
6. From above it appears that neither Doctor, who examined injured Roshan Ara (P.W. 5) and issued injury report nor Investigating Officer, has been examined in this case. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 4/19
7. Apart from the above evidence, following documents have been brought into evidence on behalf of prosecution; Ext. 1, signature of Mohammad Ali Qureshi on fardbeyan, Ext. 2, requisition written by Dr. Smt. Jaishree Prasad, Ext. 3, Postmortem Report, Ext. 4, injury report of Roshaj Ara, Ext. 5, injury report of Roshan Ara and Ext. 6, formal F.I.R.
8. On behalf of defence also, one witness was examined i.e. D.W. 1, Bhulan Mian, who has proved Ext. A, fardbeyan.
9. Apart from the above, following documents are brought into evidence on behalf of defence; Ext. A, true photocopy of fardbeyan, Ext. B to B1, true photocopy of bail bonds, Ext. D, true photocopy of order, Ext. D1, true photocopy of judgment, Ext. E, true photocopy of charge-sheet and Ext. F, true photocopy of evidence.
10. P.W. 5, is the informant of this case and she has stated in her evidence that a quarrel took place between her son Noor Alam and Firoz, son of appellant-Abdullah Qureshi, and on being chased, her son came to her and behind him, appellant Khalid Qureshi also reached there with hockey stick in his hand and started abusing her and on protest being made, he dragged her out of her house and brought her in galli and thrashed her on the ground. Her evidence further shows that appellant Khalid Qureshi assaulted her multiple times by hockey stick and thereafter appellant Abdullah Qureshi came armed with hockey stick and started assaulting her on her abdomen by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 5/19 the said hockey stick. Her evidence-in-chief further discloses that at that time, she was carrying a pregnancy of six to seven months, which was miscarriaged due to said assault and it started bleeding. Her evidence also shows that appellant Khalid Qureshi snatched golden chain from her neck and, thereafter, she was brought to Government Hospital.
11. So far her evidence-in-chief is concerned; she has wholly supported the prosecution version as made in the F.I.R. This witness was cross-examined and in cross-examination, she has stated in para- 2 that her husband is the compounder of Doctor Jaishree Prasad. She has further stated that Khalid Qureshi dragged her and when he started assaulting, she cried. Her evidence in cross-examination also discloses that she was assaulted in galli and before arrival of witnesses, appellant Abdullah Qureshi had already assaulted her. Her evidence in para -5 also discloses that she was examined by Doctor and also denied a suggestion put to her that her husband had asked her to abort the pregnancy by Doctor Jaishree. A suggestion has also been given to this witness that she has falsely implicated the appellants due to enmity, which has been denied by her.
12. Considering the aforesaid evidence, it appears that she has not only supported the prosecution version in her evidene-in-chief but also withstood the test of cross examination and there is nothing in her cross-examination to doubt her credibility Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 6/19
13. P.W. 1, Noor Alam, is the son of P.W. 5 and he was aged about 9 years at the time of recording of evidence. As such, the court first tested his capability to understand the questions and after being satisfied with his capabilities, his evidence was recorded. This witness has also supported the prosecution case in his evidence-in-chief and has also stated that his mother was pregnant at that time and further stated that Abdullah Qureshi had assaulted his mother on her abdomen by hockey stick due to which there was profused bleeding. He was also cross-examined at length and in para- 7 to 9 of his cross- examination, he has supported the manner of occurrence. Further, this witness in para -9 has stated that when Khalid Qureshi was assaulting his mother, Mumtaz Ali, Ayub Ali and Mohammad were also present there. He has further supported the prosecution version so far bleeding from her private part was coming out. This witness in para -8 has stated that appellant Abdullah Qureshi, assaulted his mother on her stomach. His attention was drawn towards his previous statement given before the police and then he has asserted that he had told Daroga Ji that his mother was assaulted by appellant Khalid Qureshi@ Maina in galli and appellant Abdullah Qureshi had also assaulted his mother on stomach due to which, there was profuse bleeding from her private parts.
14. P.W. 2, Ayub Ali has stated that on hulla, he came to the house of Roshan Ara, P.W. 5, and saw Khalid Qureshi was chasing Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 7/19 Noor Alam and at that time Khalid Qureshi had hockey stick in his hand. He has also stated in his evidence-in-chief that Roshan Ara, (P.W. 5) was dragged out of her house and she was assaulted. His evidence-in-chief further discloses that Abudllah Qureshi also assaulted her by hockey stick on her stomach. Even in his cross- examination, this witness has stated that occurrence took place in the galli in front of house of Roshan Ara, P.W. 5, and further in his cross- examination he has stated that he had seen the appellant Khalid Qureshi, chasing Noor Alam. This witness has also stated in his cross- examination about the assault to Roshan Ara by Khalid Qureshi. His evidence also shows that persons present at the place of occurrence did not try to save her. It further appears from his evidence that after assault Roshan Ara, P.W. 5, fell flat on the ground and also stated about assault by Abdullah Qureshi. His attention was also drawn towards the statement given before the police and he has stated that he has not disclosed before the Daroga Ji that Khalid Qureshi assaulted Roshan Ara, (P.W. 5), on her back by hockey stick and Abdullah Qureshi assaulted her on her abdomen. A suggestion has been given to this witness that his father has lodged a criminal case against accused Abdullah Qureshi and he has also lodged the case and he then stated that he does not know.
15. P.W. 3. Mohammad Ali Qureshi, is the husband of informant, Roshan Ara, and he has also supported the prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 8/19 case in his evidence-in-chief. He has further proved his fardbeyan and also proved his signature on fardbeyan. This witness has also stated in his evidence-in-chief that a still born infant was taken out. In para -6 of his cross examination, he has stated that he reached the place of occurrence, while the informant-Roshan Ara, was being assaulted by the appellants and at that time Mohammad Shabuddin, Mumtaz Ali and Ayub Ali came there and Noor Alam was also present there. His cross-examination in para-6 disclosed that there was some blood at the place of occurrence and in the "Saya" of informant and also stated that Roshan Ara gave birth to a dead child after two to three days. His attention has also been drawn towards the statement given by him before the police in para -9 and 10 and he has stated that he had told Daroga Ji about assault by Abdullah Qureshi on back and abdomen. In para -11 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that prior to this occurrence appellant Khalid Qureshi had lodged a false case against him three years back and he has also stated that nephew of Abdullah Qureshi had not lodged any case against him.
16. From perusal of his evidence-in-chief as well as cross- examination, it appears that there was enmity between the parties from before and it further appears that there are some contradictions between his earlier statement made before the police and his evidence- in-chief.
17. P.W. 4, has also supported the prosecution version in his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 9/19 evidence-in-chief, so far assault and bleeding is concerned. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know that Abdullah Qureshi and Aziz Qureshi had lodged a case against informant's husband which is Tr. No. 68/62. His evidence further discloses that Ali Ahmad Qureshi, husband of the Roshan Ara, P.W. 5, is one of the bailors in a case lodged by Ramprasad Singh. Attention of this witness was also drawn towards his previous statement made before the police and he has stated that he told the police that on hulla, he had gone to the house of Roshan Ara and saw Khalid Qureshi and Abdullah Qureshi, assaulting Roshan Ara by hockey stick and he has also told Daroga Ji that due to assault on abdomen of Roshan Ara, blood started coming out. This witness has admitted that he did not try to save her.
18. In this case P.W. 8 and 9 are formal witnesses, who have proved injury reports and formal F.I.R. with objection.
19. P.W. 6, is the Doctor Smt. Jaishree Prasad. She has stated in her statement that on 13.03.1988, she was posted as CAS, Sadar Hospital, Chapra and on that day she sent Station Diary Entry (SDE) No. 390 to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhagwanbazar, police station mentioning that a police case of injury of Smt. Roshan Ara in maternity ward, having about seven months of pregnancy, bleeding profusely, thus a caesarean was done and a dead female child was taken out. She has proved Station Diary Entry as Ext. 2. In her cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 10/19 examination, she has stated that Roshan Ara was not known to her from before and the bleeding was evident from Bed Head Ticket (BHT) of the patient, which is mentioned in the hospital. She has denied a suggestion that Mohammad Ali Qureshi was her compounder.
20. P.W. 7, Doctor Jai Kumar Singh was posted as CAS at Sadar Hospital, Chapra and on 14.03.1988 at 4.50 P.M., he conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of unnamed infant of muslim family, approximately 28 weeks, premature and found that:-
(i) No evidence of External or internal injury.
(ii) Macerated, soft, flaccid and flattened body.
(iii) Sweetish disagreeable smells.
(iv) Large raised areas full of red serous or sero Sanguineous fluid.
(v) Epidermis raised
(vi) Oedematous tissues, collection of turbid red fluid on serous-cavities
(vii) Seperated Cranial sutures.
(viii) Brain matters appearing pulpy with grey red colour.
21. In his cross examination, he has stated that some females having 3 to 4 issues, get their pregnancy terminated medically. He has also stated that medical termination of pregnancy is generally done by lady doctor, he has also admitted that he has not mentioned any cause Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 11/19 of death of still born child. He has also stated that in medical termination of pregnancy or abortion, infant dies inside the uterus and in that case symptoms are the same as described above.
22. From the evidences of P.W. 6 and 7, it appears that one of the doctors has only issued a requisition to the police and she has stated about the bleeding but a suggestion has been given to her that the husband of the informant P.W. 5, is her compounder, though she denied the suggestion but P.W. 5, in her evidence has admitted that her husband is compounder of Dr. Smt. Jaishree Prasad. So far P.W. 7, Dr. Jai Kumar Singh is concerned, he conducted the post mortem of still born child and his evidence shows that he has not found any internal or external injury on the dead body of the said child. His evidence also shows that even in case of medical termination/abortion such symptoms, which he has described in his report are found.
23. In this case, Doctor who examined P.W. 5, Roshan Ara and issued injury report has not been examined and only injury report has been formally proved by P.W. 8. Similarly Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case also has not been examined and formal F.I.R has been proved by P.W. 9.
24. Defence has come with a case that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity and D.W. 1, Bhulan Mian has proved the fardbeyan in the hand writing of Shri K.K. Mishra A.S.I. of Bhagwanbazar police station, which has been marked Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 12/19 as Ext. A. From his evidence, it appears that he has proved the photocopy and he has also proved the photocopy of bail bonds as Ext. D/1. From his evidence, it appears that nobody appeared on behalf of prosecution for his cross-examination but later on cross examination was done on behalf of informant and his cross examination shows that he has nothing to do with the aforesaid case and further deposed that he earlier also has deposed in favour of the appellant Khalid Qureshi and he has deposed against the informant of the present case and further deposed in the case against husband of the informant and his family members.
25. Considering cross-examination of D.W. 1, it appears that this witness is a highly interested witness and he has deposed in so many cases in favour of appellant Khalid Qureshi and against the husband of the informant and others.
26. Main contention of the appellants for assailing the judgment is that simply a quarrel had taken place between the children for which, the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Further, in this case neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined and evidences of P.W. 1 to 4 clearly show that there are contradictions in their evidence from their earlier statement made before the police and in such a circumstance, non examination of I.O. is a vital lapse on the part of the prosecution. It has also been argued that though there is allegation that appellants Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 13/19 assaulted P.W. 5, Roshan Ara but injury report does not show any injury over the person of said Roshan Ara. Moreover, the Doctor, who had examined Roshan Ara, has not come foraward to corroborate the ocular evidence. It has also been argued that so far other Doctors are concerned, P.W. 7, has conducted the post examination of the still born child and he has not stated about any mark of injury on the dead body of the child and so far other Doctor i.e. Smt. Jaishree Prasad is concerned, the evidence of P.W.5, itself shows that her husband was working in the hospital as compounder under the said Doctor Jaishree Prasad. As such no cogent and reliable evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to corroborate the prosecution evidence. So far assault is concerned, it has further been argued that though the witnesses have stated about their presence at the time of occurrence, but none of them tried to save P.W. 5 as they have specifically stated that they have not tried to save her, which creates a shadow of doubt about the evidence of prosecution witnesses as it is the normal conduct of a human being that when he sees his own persons are being assaulted, he must come forward to help/save him. In this case most of the witnesses are close relative of P.W. 5 and there are contradictions in the evidences of all the prosecution witnesses from their statement made before police. It has been thus argued that on the above background, impugned judgment, convicting the appellants on the basis of above evidences is not sustainable in the eye of law. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 14/19
27. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State submitted that in this case there are consistent evidences of P.W. 5 and P.W. 1, which have been supported by other witnesses also. Testimonies of P.Ws clearly show that P.W. 5 was assaulted by the appellant Khalid Qureshi on her back and Abdullah Qureshi assaulted on her abdomen by hockey stick and there are also evidences, which show that due to assault, P.W. 5 started bleeding profusely and further there is evidence of P.W. 6, which shows that a still born child was taken out from her womb and also Bed Head Ticket (BHT) and injury report Ext. 4 and 5, supports the prosecution case.
28. P.W. 5, is the informant and she has supported the prosecution case in her evidence-in-chief and in spite of rigorous cross-examination, there is nothing in her entire cross-examine to create any shadow of doubt about her credibility. Further, P.W. 1, who is the son of informant also supported the prosecution case and substantiated the evidence of P.W. 5. This witness is aged about nine years at the time of his examination and it appears that his attention was drawn towards his previous statement made before the police, then he asserted that her mother was assaulted by appellant Khalid Qureshi and Abdullah Qureshi. P.W. 2 has also supported the prosecution case but this witness has stated that persons present at the place of occurrence, did not come forward to save P.W. 5. and his evidence further shows that due to assault P.W. 5, fell flat on the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 15/19 ground on abdomen. It also appears that earlier a criminal case was lodged by his father against Abdullah Qureshi as such this witness, appears to be an interested witness. P.W. 3, is the husband of P.W. 5 and he has also supported the occurrence as alleged. Apart from that his evidence in cross-examination, also shows that there were cases between the parties from before. Similarly evidence of P.W. 4 shows that though he has supported the prosecution version but from his evidence also discloses that he had not tried to save P.W. 5.
29. Apart from that, it also appears that after assault, P.W. 5 was taken to Sadar Hospital and she was being treated there but the Doctor, who had treated the P.W. 5, at Sadar Hospital and issued injury reports, has not been examined and the injury report Ext. 4 and 5 have been proved by a formal witness i.e. P.W. 8. In order to prove the charge under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, examination of the Doctor is not always necessary. The evidence of P.W. 6 and 7 further shows that by caesarian operation, P.W.5 gave birth to a still born female child and its postmortem was performed by P.W. 7, who did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the dead child.
30. In this case appellant Abdullah Qureshi has been convicted under Section 316 of Indian Penal Code but for proving a case under Section 316, which provides as follows:-
"Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 16/19 and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine"
31. In order to establish charge under Section 316 Indian Penal Code, prosecution has to establish that (i) the women was quick with the child (ii) accused did an act to cause the death of the child (iii) the circumstance, under which such act was done so as to make the accused guilty of culpable homicide, if death has been caused and (iv) such act did cause death of quick unborn child. Section 316 Indian Penal Code postulates a situation where accused must do an act or omission that if the accused has caused the death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide and secondly his act entailed the death of quick unborn child.
32. However, from discussions made above, it clearly appears that the above ingredients are lacking in the present case. The evidence only shows that appellants simply assaulted P.W. 5, by hockey sticks and there is nothing to show that they did so with an intent to commit culpable homicide. Further medical evidence is silent on the point that due to assault P.W. 5 miscarriage her unborn child. The occurrence appears to have taken place on 13.03.1988 and there is no medical evidence to show that on this date, there was any bleeding from the private part of P.W. 5 due to assault by appellants.. According to P.W. 6 on 03.03.1988, there was profuse bleeding and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 17/19 then a dead female child was taken out from the womb of P.W. 5 by a cesarean. P.W. 7, who performed autopsy of the still born child had not found any external or internal injury on the person of the said still born child.
33. Even if the prosecution case is believed to be true, there are evidence that a still born child was delivered and there are evidences that accused persons assaulted P.W. 5, causing miscarriage of her six months pregnancy but as discussed above there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants were aware that P.W. 5, was pregnant at that time and they assaulted her with an intention to cause miscarriage of her pregnancy. Further there is nothing available on record to show that due to injuries caused by appellants, she received injury of such type, causing miscarriage and evidence of P.W.2 shows due to assault P.W. 5 fell flat on the ground on abdomen so whatever act done by the appellants, they do not appear to be an intentional one and further there is nothing available on record to suggest that her pregnancy was terminated due to assault by appellants.
34. Accordingly, so far conviction of appellant Abdullah Qureshi under Section 316 is concerned; prosecution has failed to prove its charge U/S 316 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. So far conviction of appellants under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is concerned, there are sufficient materials available on record that they had assaulted P.W. 5. Appellant Khalid Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 18/19 Qureshi, he has also been convicted under Section 448 Indian Penal Code and as discussed above, it clearly appears that there are consistent evidence available on record to show that he had entered into the house of P.W. 5, dragged her out and assaulted her. As such, so far conviction of appellant Abdullah Qureshi U/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of Khalid Qureshi under Section 323 and 448 Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same appears to be just and proper.
35. Considering the entire discussions made above, conviction of appellant No. 1, Abdullah Qureshi U/S 316 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and his conviction under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is upheld. So far conviction of appellant no. 2, Khalid Qureshi is concerned, he is found guilty of the charge under Section 323 and 448 Indian Penal Code and his conviction is accordingly upheld. As both the appellants have faced the trauma of trial and appeal for a long period of 28 years and as appellant Abdullah Qureshi was aged about sixty years at the time of his conviction and he must now be aged about more than 74 years. Similarly, appellant No. 2, was aged about 25 years at the time of Judgment and due to petty dispute occurrence took place. As such instead of sending them for imprisonment, their sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody and they will have to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, which shall be payable to P.W. 5, and in default of payment of fine, they will Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.220 of 2002 dt.02.05.2017 19/19 have to serve a simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
36. With this modification in conviction and sentence, this appeal is disposed of.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV Date 12.04.2017
Uploading Date 02.05.2017
Transmission Date 02.05.2017