Mohdimran Khan vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 363 Tel

     HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                       Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

                        DATE: 27.01.2023
Between :

Mohd. Imran Khan.
                                       ...Appellant
      And

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor.

                                       ...Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2023

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?

3. Whether Their Lordships/Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the judgment ?

______________________ DR. G. RADHA RANI, J

_________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

DATE: 27.01.2023 Between :

Mohd. Imran Khan.

...Appellant And

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor.

                                        ...Respondent


For Appellant           : Sri Mettu Goverdhan Reddy,
                          Advocate

For respondent          : Public Prosecutor.



< Gist:


< Head Note:



? CITATIONS :

1. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543
2. 1957 SCR 981

C/15

                                                    Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J
                                                    Crl.A.No.366 of 2014



           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
                           AND

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.366 of 2014

JUDGMENT : (Per G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 17.02.2014

in S.C.No.532 of 2011, on the file of II Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder, the appellant was

convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and

in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The appellant is the sole accused. The case of the

prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the intervening night of 1st/2nd

November, 2010, the accused murdered the deceased Katimani

Pratap @ Sunder Raj by assaulting with a cement tile boulder,

causing injuries on the head in front of the shop bearing No.

18-2-342/C, near Seven Temple, Jangammet, Hyderabad.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

3. Basing on the report of PW-1, a crime was registered against

the accused vide Crime No.377 of 2010, of Chatrinaka Police

Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited

the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their

statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased, forwarded dead body for postmortem

examination, observed the scene of offence, prepared crime report,

apprehended the accused on 11.11.2010, recorded his confession in

the presence of panch witnesses, seized the material objects and

after receiving the medical reports, laid the charge sheet against the

accused for the above said offence.

4. After committal proceedings, the Sessions Court framed

charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 10, Exs.P-1 to P-9 and material objects MOs.1 to 8 are

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

marked. Further, the accused was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence of the

prosecution witnesses which was denied by the accused and he also

reported no evidence on his behalf.

6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the accused has

committed the murder of the deceased, and accordingly, convicted

him as aforesaid.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

there are no eyewitnesses to the incident but the prosecution has

planted PWs.3 and 4 as eye witnesses. It is further contended by

the learned counsel for the appellant that the scene of offence is not

properly established by the prosecution as the witnesses deposed

that the offence took place in front of the shop of PW-1 though it

took place in front of the temple and as such the prosecution

miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit

of doubt and prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by

acquitting the appellant.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended

that the material objects are recovered pursuant to the confession of

the accused, which is admissible under Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act and further, the FSL report also disclose that human

blood was traced on the clothes of the accused. It is further

contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence

on record and convicted the appellant and there is no error or

irregularity in the judgment of the Sessions Court, warranting

interference of this Court, and therefore, prayed to confirm the

judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal.

10. The points for determination in this case are;

1. Whether the presence of PWs.3 and 4 at the time of incident, near the scene of offence is proved by the prosecution ?

2. Whether the human hair found on the material object/M.O.2 establishes as that of the deceased?

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

3. Whether the trial Court is proper in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 of IPC ?

It is not necessary to reiterate the entire evidence of the prosecution

and the relevant evidence will be referred/discussed for answering

the above said points.

11. For better appreciation of facts, the evidence of the witnesses

is reproduced as follows :

PW-1 is the owner of the shop. His evidence disclose that

three months prior to the offence, the deceased came from Bidar

and was working under him as a daily labour. Further, the

deceased used to stay alone in a rented room at Indira Nagar,

Chandrayangutta. On 02.11.2010, while he was in the shop, some

passersby informed him that a dead body was lying in a pool of

blood, in front of Seven Temple, Jangammet, Falaknama. On that,

he along with his father went to the said place, identified the dead

body as that of Pratap and opined that some unknown persons

might have killed him. His evidence further disclose that on

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

01.11.2010 at 6.00 p.m., the deceased approached his father Sri

Syed Jaffar in a drunken condition and borrowed Rs.50/- from him

and on 31.10.2010 evening, the deceased came to his shop and

took Rs.200/- from him. It is specifically testified by PW-1 that

the deceased was addicted to alcohol and other bad habits. Ex.P-1

is the report preferred by him to Chatrinaka Police Station. M.O.1

is the ash colour pant of deceased.

12. PW-2 is an Auto driver, who was also working under PW-1.

He testified that the deceased used to work under PW-1 and about

2½ years back, while he was in the shop of PW-1, he was told that

a dead body was near seven temple. On that, he went and

identified the dead body as that of Pratap.

13. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it can be construed that

they have identified the dead body of the deceased as that of one

Pratap, who worked under PW-1 as daily labour and the dead body

was found in front of seven temple. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 have

stated as to who has murdered the deceased. It is relevant to

mention that Ex.P-1/report also disclose that the deceased was

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

last seen by Sri Syed Jaffar, who is the father of PW-1 on

01.11.2010 at 6.00 p.m. and by that time, the deceased was in a

drunken condition. Ex.P-1 further disclose that some unknown

offenders might have murdered the deceased. Ex.P-1 was received

by the Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station on

02.11.2010 at 7.45 a.m. and basing on it, a case was registered

against unknown offenders for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC vide Crime No.377 of 2010 and the original

FIR is Ex.P-6.

14. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is crucial to the case as they

are alleged to be the direct eye witnesses to the incident i.e. the

accused throwing the boulder on the deceased, and as a result, the

said boulder hit on the head and face of the deceased, causing his

death.

15. Whether PWs.3 and 4 witnessed the incident is to be

scrutinized as per their evidence, which is point No.1 framed in this

appeal.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

16. The evidence of PW-3 disclose that about 2½ years back,

during the night time, he slept on the footpath near seven temples,

Jangammet, Falaknama and at about 11.00 p.m. or so, he heard

galata, woke up and found the accused, deceased along with a

female quarrelling with each other. Further, the accused took a

brick and thrown it on the head of the deceased, but it missed and

again, the accused took the same cement brick and hurled it on the

head of the deceased and as a result, the deceased fell down on the

road with bleeding injury and died on the spot. Out of fear, he ran

away.

17. The evidence of PW-4 disclose that about 2½ years back, he

along with PW-3 and the deceased slept on the footpath at seven

temples and at about 3.00 or 4.00 a.m., they heard a galata. On

that, he and PW-3 woke up, rushed to that place, found accused,

deceased and one lady quarrelling with each other. Further,

accused took a cement boulder and hit the deceased on his head.

The deceased ran away a little distance, but the accused chased and

hit him on the head with the same cement boulder. As a result, the

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries. On

seeing the same, they ran away from the place.

18. From the above said evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the following

discrepancies can be noticed:

1. The time of incident is not tallying -

PW-3 testified that the incident took place at 11.00 p.m.

or so, and PW-4 deposed that the incident took place at

about 3.00 or 4.00 a.m.

2. The evidence of PW-3 disclose that he alone witnessed

the incident, whereas, the evidence of PW-4 disclose that

he was present at the scene of offence along with PW-3

and the deceased.

Hence, the presence of PW-4 at the scene of offence was not

testified by PW-3. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-1 clearly

disclose that the deceased was residing alone in a rented room at

Indira Nagar of Chandrayangutta, whereas, the evidence of PW-4

disclose that the deceased slept along with them on the footpath.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

3. As per the evidence of PW-3, the accused thrown a

boulder on the head of the deceased but it missed and

again, the accused hurled the boulder which hit the head

of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and

died on the spot. Whereas, the evidence of PW-4

disclose that the accused beat the deceased with the same

boulder twice on his head. As a result, the deceased fell

down with bleeding injuries and he did not notice

whether the deceased died at that point of time or not.

4. Furthermore, neither PW-3 nor PW-4 gave report to the

Police about the incident.

5. As per the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the presence of one

woman was noticed at the scene of offence along with

accused and the deceased when they were quarrelling.

But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the

said woman was not examined before the trial Court.

19. In a case of homicide, the evidence of Doctor who conducted

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is crucial to the case.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

PW-9 is the Doctor and his evidence disclose that he conducted

autopsy over the dead body of deceased named Pratap on

02.11.2010 and found 28 ante-mortem injuries over the dead body

of the deceased, which are mentioned in Ex.P-7/postmortem

examination report of the deceased. It is specifically opined by

PW-9 that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to head

injury associated with other injuries.

20. Admittedly, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 only disclose that

the accused has hurled boulder on the head of the deceased

maximum twice, but as to how the deceased sustained 28 external

injuries, was not at all explained by the Prosecution. Moreover, the

injuries mentioned in Ex.P-7 disclose that deceased sustained

injuries all over his body.

21. In view of the above said five discrepancies from the

evidence of PWs.3 and 4, coupled with the evidence of PW-9, it is

highly doubtful whether PWs.3 and 4 have witnessed the incident

or not, as the ocular evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not corroborated

with the medical evidence.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

22. PW-5 is the panch witness to the scene of offence. His

evidence disclose that the Police have prepared the scene of

observation panchanama/Ex.P-2 and M.Os.1 to 5 (ash colour pant,

cement brick, pair of black chappals, underwear, piece of cloth).

Except M.O.2, the rest of the material objects belong to the

deceased), which were seized from the scene of offence. Ex.P-3 is

the rough sketch. On perusal of Ex.P-2, it is evident that the scene

of offence is near seven temples at Jangammet, in front of one

RCC building consisting of 5 shutter shops, and the dead body of

the deceased was found in front of shop bearing No.18-2-342/C.

Ex.P-2 further disclose that the panchas are of the opinion that the

deceased/Pratap might have been murdered with a boulder/a

reddish colour cement tile, by some unknown person or persons.

But in Ex.P-3/rough sketch, the dead body is not shown, except the

seven temples and the shops, which are quite far away from each

other, and therefore, Ex.P-3 is in no way helpful either for the

prosecution or for the defence to fix the scene of offence. As

stated supra, PWs.3 and 4 testified that the dead body was found

near seven temples, which is contrary to Ex.P-2/Scene observation

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

panchanama, which disclose that the dead body was found in front

of the shop bearing No.18-2-342/C.

23. PW-6 is the panch witness to the inquest panchanama. He

testified that he visited the mortuary of Osmania Government

Hospital at the instance of Police on 02.11.2010 and found one

male dead body with an injury on the left side of the head, face and

another injury on the back side of the head. Ex.P-4 is the inquest

panchanama. On perusal of Ex.P-4, at Column No.9, it is

mentioned that there is a head injury with bleeding and jaw of the

deceased was broken. Column No.15 of Ex.P-4, the panch

witnesses opined that the death of the deceased might have caused

by the violent acts of some unknown offenders using the blunt

object as boulder in causing injury to the face of the deceased as

well as the head, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

24. PW-7 is the panch witness to the confession of the accused

and recovery of material objects, pursuant to the said confession.

His evidence disclose that on 11.11.2010, at about 2.30 or 3.00

p.m., he along with LW-15/Sri Pappu were called to the Police

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

Station and they found the accused in Police custody. At the

request of the Police, they enquired the accused and he confessed

of committing murder of the deceased, for which, a confession

statement was drafted. Pursuant to it, the accused have led them

and the Police to the graveyard, and produced his shirt and pant i.e.

M.Os.6 and 7. Ex.P-5 is the confession and seizure panchanama.

25. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.5 to 7, it is evident that

pursuant to the incident, scene observation panchanama, inquest

panchanama were held on 02.11.2010. At that point of time, the

case was registered against unknown offenders and even during the

course of inquest and scene observation, the panch witnesses

opined that some unknown person or persons might have murdered

the deceased with blunt object such as boulder which ultimately

resulted in the death of the deceased. But, as per the evidence of

PW-7/panch witness, the accused was found in the Police custody

on 11.11.2010 and on enquiry, he confessed his guilt in their

presence and subsequent to his confession, the clothes of the

accused were seized.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

26. PWs.8 and 10 are the Police officials, who registered and

investigated the case. Hence, their evidence need not be discussed

in detail.

27. The learned Public Prosecutor specifically contended that the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused, as M.Os.6 to 8

were seized, pursuant to the confession of the accused, which is

admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, on

perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that the trial

Court disbelieved the evidence of PW-7 and categorically held as

under :

"the confession is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, for the reason that no confession made to a Police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of the offence and consequent to the said confession, the seizure of M.Os.6 and 7 also not believable."

Therefore, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is not at

all tenable and much weightage cannot be given, as the appeal

itself is preferred by the appellant, challenging the findings of the

trial Court. Though recovery pursuant to the confession is

admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

prosecution has failed to prove that M.Os.6 and 7/clothes contain

the bloodstains of the deceased.

28. Therefore, it can be construed that the entire case rests on the

confession statement of the accused, which is hit by Section 25 of

the Indian Evidence Act. Though it is the contention of the

prosecution that PWs.3 and 4 are the direct eye witnesses to the

incident, it is highly unbelievable in view of the discrepancies and

contradictions in their evidence.

29. But, surprisingly, the trial Court convicted the accused

mainly believing the evidence of PW-10 i.e. the investigating

officer, which reads as follows:

"According to P.W.10 he seized all the M.Os.1 to 7 from the scene of offence. As seen from Ex.P.2 scene of offence observation panchanama the P.W.10 seized hair collected at the scene of offence from the boulder. This hair was sent to FSL for examination. Ex.P.9 FSL report reveals the said hair is human hair. So, naturally a person hit with a boulder like M.O.2 certainly on that part of the hair will be stick to some extent to the said boulder. In the case on hand also the same thing was done. So, the boulder contains the human hair and this circumstance supports the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and the case of the prosecution. So, when over all circumstances of the case is fairly examined referring to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

10. I am fully convinced that the accused beat the deceased Pratap with a boulder on the head on the intervening night of 1/2-11-2010 causing death of the

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

deceased. The evidence of direct witnesses P.Ws.3 & 4 is quite convincing and believable and I have not seen any embellishment or coloured version to disbelieve the same. There may be some natural variation, but that does not mean that P.Ws.3 & 4 have not witnessed the incident. Therefore, for all the reasons discussed supra the evidence of prosecution witnesses is inspiring confidence to accept that the accused committed the murder of the deceased on the intervening night of 1/2-11-2010".

30. Ex.P-9 is the FSL report marked through PW-10/the

investigating officer. On perusal of the FSL report, it is evident

that the Assistant Director analysed Item No.2 i.e. "hair strands"

and gave biological report that origin of hair in Item No.2 is of

human. There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that the

hair analysed by the Assistant Director, FSL, belongs to that of the

deceased. The investigating officer ought to have taken the sample

of the hair strands from the dead body of the deceased, in order to

analyse the same to prove that the hair on the boulder and the hair

sample of the deceased are one and the same, so that the material

object/M.O.2 is the crime weapon, is proved.

31. In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to connect the

crime with that of the crime object and the accused. In the present

case, there is no evidence on record to show that the boulder

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

contains the finger prints of the accused and the hair is that of the

deceased. On one hand, the material object/M.O.2 i.e. the cement

brick which was seized from the scene of offence as per Ex.P-2/

scene observation panchanama. But the FSL report/Ex.P-9

disclose that Item No.8 is a red colour tile which is analysed by the

FSL, but not the cement brick. The FSL report further disclose that

human blood was detected on Item Nos.1, 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and

the blood group 'B' was found on Item Nos.1, 7, 8, 11 and 12. But

there is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased's blood

group is 'B', in order to connect the crime with that of the accused.

32. It is important to note that it is for the prosecution to prove

that the accused had inflicted injuries with M.O.2/cement brick and

the said brick was forwarded to the FSL for chemical analysis,

which contains the blood-stains of the deceased. But, in the

present case, a red tile was sent to FSL but not M.O.2. The FSL

report i.e. Ex.P-9, is no way helpful to the prosecution to connect

the accused with that of the crime weapon i.e. to prove that the

cement brick, which was alleged to have been recovered from the

scene of offence contains bloodstains of the deceased. As stated

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

supra, the trial Court itself has disbelieved the recovery of M.Os.6

and 7 pursuant to the confession of the accused, which alleged to

contain the blood-stains of the deceased. No iota of evidence was

placed before the Court to prove the motive or intention of the

accused to murder the deceased. In the absence of oral or

documentary evidence, no inference can be drawn against the

accused.

33. Admittedly, the death of the deceased is a homicide as per

the evidence of PW-9/Doctor and Ex.P-7/the postmortem report of

the deceased. In a case of homicide, it is for the prosecution to

prove the motive, knowledge and intention for committing the

murder of the deceased by the accused and that the accused

inflicted injuries on the deceased, having knowledge that the

injuries are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. In the

present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the

appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

34. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahender

Singh & others v. State of M.P.1, their Lordships have relied on

the judgment reported in VadiveluThevar v. The State of

Madras2 and held as under :

"Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely,

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category cases that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."

As per the above ratio, the witnesses are of three types, (1) wholly

reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor

wholly unreliable.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543

1957 SCR 981

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

35. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 can be treated as hearsay evidence and

the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 comes under the third category i.e.

'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable' and the trial Court

ought to have looked for corroboration in material particulars either

direct or circumstantial. There is no corroboration as to the

material particulars for the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. Hence, it can

be construed that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 would fall in the

category of 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable'.

36. As discussed supra, the presence of PWs.3 and 4 at the scene

of offence is highly doubtful in view of the contradictions between

their evidence and furthermore, the prosecution has failed to prove

that the hair on the cement brick was that of the deceased and also

failed to connect the crime weapon with that of the accused. It is

pertinent to mention that the crime weapon was seized from the

scene of offence but not from the accused pursuant to his

confession. Therefore, the trial Court erred in convicting the

Dr. GRR, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.366 of 2014

appellant and the judgment deserves to be set aside, as the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

37. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant

is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of

IPC, and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the

appellant vide Judgment dated 17.02.2014 in S.C.No.532 of 2011

on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the

charged offence. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not

required in any other case. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The appellant is entitled for refund of fine amount paid, if any.

M.Os.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ DR. G. RADHA RANI, J

_________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 27.01.2023 N.B:1. Judgment be forthwith communicated to the jail authorities concerned.

2. L.R. copy be marked.

(b/o) ajr