Madhvanand And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1593 UK

                                  Reserved
   HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2004

Madhvanand and others                               ........... Appellants

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                ........ Respondent



Present : Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwa,
          Advocate for the appellants.
          Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.


                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred against the

judgment and order dated 20.08.2004 passed in Sessions

Trial No. 151 of 2002, under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and

Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ("the Act),

by the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned

judgment and order, the appellants Devki Devi and

Bhagirathi Devi have been convicted under Sections

304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and have been

sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Section 304B IPC -imprisonment for a

period of seven years.

(ii) Section 201 IPC - imprisonment for a

period of two years.

(iii) Section 3/4 of the Act - imprisonment for

a period of six months.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the

appellants Madhvanand and Bachi Ram have been

convicted under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4

of the Act and have been sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Section 304B IPC - rigorous

imprisonment for a period of ten years.

(ii) Section 201 IPC - rigorous imprisonment

for a period of two years.

(iii) Section 3/4 of the Act - imprisonment for

a period of six months.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as

follows. The deceased Santoshi Devi and appellant

Madhvanand were married on 08.05.1999. Appellant

Bachi Ram is the father-in-law of the deceased. Appellant

Devki Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The

appellant Bhagirathi Devi is the sister-in-law (elder

brother's wife of the husband of the deceased). According

to the prosecution, after marriage, the appellants

demanded dowry. The deceased was pregnant, but she

was killed and her body was hanged from a tree so as to

show as if it was a case of hanging. This information

reached to the family members of the deceased. Her uncle

Hari Ram, PW 3, lodged a report on 20.01.2001 at 07:50

p.m. at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The

investigation was carried out. The inquest of the deceased

was conducted. Her body was found suspended from a

tree. The dead body was in a seated position on the

ground. The witnesses of the inquest recorded that it was

not a case of hanging. It reflected, as if she was killed and

hanged thereafter. The inquest report further records that

from the house of the appellants upto the place of

incident, there were pieces of broken bangles. The

Investigating Officer ("IO") prepared the site plan, Ex. A-4.

Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. According

to the doctor, the death was caused as a result of

asphyxia due to strangulation. After investigation,

chargesheet under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 of the

Act was filed.

4. On 04.07.2002, charge under Sections 304B,

201 and 3/4 of the Act was framed, to which the

appellants denied and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution

examined as many as eight witnesses i.e. PW 1 Kishori

Lal, father of the deceased, PW 2 Harish Chandra, uncle

of the deceased, PW 3 Hari Ram, uncle of the deceased,

who lodged the report, PW 4 Hayat Ram, PW 5 Kripal

Chandra, PW 6 Narayan Singh, the IO, PW 7 Dr.

Yashwant Singh Rawat, who conducted the postmortem

of the deceased and PW 8 SI Chaman Singh, who initially

took the investigation.

6. The appellants were examined under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code").

According to the appellants, they have been falsely

implicated. The father-in-law of the deceased Bachi Ram,

in his examination under Section 313 of the Code has

stated that the deceased was mentally not well as she was

a patient of epilepsy. In their defence, the appellants

examined DW 1 Suresh, DW 2 Badlu Sah and DW 3

Bachi Ram.

7. During the course of hearing of this appeal,

appellant Bachi Ram died and by an order dated

07.12.2019, it has been recorded that the appeal is

abated qua the appellant Bachi Ram. The appeal now is

pending qua the appellants Madhvanand, Devki Devi and

Bhagirathi Devi.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would

submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the

charges against the appellants. They ought to have been

acquitted of the charge. But, the court below committed

an error in convicting the appellants. She would submit

the following points also in her submissions:-

(i) The inquest report records that there

were broken bangles in the way from

the house of the deceased to the

place of occurrence, but the broken

bangles were not recovered.

(ii) According to the postmortem report,

the death was due to strangulation,

but the ligature was not in 'O' shape.

The deceased was in a seated

position, which might happen when

the branch bends.

(iii) The witnesses, for the first time, told

in the court that Rs. 25,000/- and

scooter was demanded in the dowry.

During investigation, it was not

revealed by the witnesses.

(iv) The statements of the witnesses

reveal that the deceased would

complain to them that her in-laws

would not allow her to rest. She was

irritated for this reason. She was a

patient of epilepsy.

(v) At the time of marriage, according to

PW 1 Kishori Lal, no demand was

made. The deceased used to visit her

father's house. She was always

treated well by the appellants. The

deceased was not used to work at

her paternal home, and since in her

in-laws' house she was doing

household chores, it appears that it

irritated her. Coupled with the

epileptic seizure, she was depressed.

(vi) Had the deceased been killed and

suspended from the tree, her knee

would not have bend in the manner

as is shown in the photographs.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

State would submit that it is a case of death by

strangulation. The deceased was subjected to cruelty by

the appellants for and in connection with the demand of

dowry. The branch of tree, from which the deceased was

suspended, was at the height of five feet from the ground.

The length of the rope was one meter. It is not a case of

hanging. The witnesses have stated about the demand of

dowry and harassment for that reason. The doctor has

also opined that it is a case of strangulation. The death

occurred within two years of the marriage. The deceased

was thirty-six weeks pregnant. She had no reason to

commit suicide. She was killed. The court below rightly

convicted and sentenced the appellants. No interference is

warranted in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

11. PW 1 Kishori Lal is father of the deceased.

According to him, the deceased was married on

08.05.1999 with the appellant Madhvanand. This witness

gave cash and articles, including jewelry, as per his

status, at the time of marriage. But, the appellants were

not satisfied with the given dowry and they started

harassing the deceased for or in connection with the

demand of dowry. According to PW 1 Kishori Lal, the

deceased would tell him that the appellants would not

allow her to rest even for a minute and would taunt her

as to what her father had given to her. They were not

happy with the marriage. The deceased would also tell to

this witness that since the deceased was the only

daughter of her father, the appellants were expecting

more dowry. The deceased once visited the house of this

witness and told that the appellants are demanding Rs.

25,000/- and a scooter. A Panchayat was also conducted,

in which Harish Ram, Param Ram visited the house of the

appellants. There also, according to PW 1 Kishori Lal, the

appellants demanded dowry. Since deceased was

pregnant, this witness thought that after giving birth to a

child perhaps the things would be normalized. But,

according to PW 1 Kishori Lal, on 20.01.2001, he was told

that the deceased has committed suicide. He visited the

place of incident. He saw the deceased suspending from a

tree. She was in a seated position. Photographs of the

dead body were taken. Inquest was prepared, of which

this witness was also a witness. He proved the inquest

report, Ex. A-1. Some other articles i.e. rope, chappals,

etc. of the deceased were also recovered by the police.

This witness has proved the memo of it, which is Ex. A-2.

12. PW 2 Harish Chand has also stated about

demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased

Santoshi Devi. This witness has stated that he had gone

along with the father of the deceased to her in-laws'

house, where also the demand of dowry was made. He

was a member of Panchayat. PW 2 Harish Ram has also

stated that after Panchayat, report was not lodged due to

fear of strained relations. They all thought that after

delivery of the child perhaps the things would improve,

but on 20.01.2001, the deceased was found dead. PW 2

Harish Ram has also stated about the posture,

photographs, etc. of the deceased.

13. PW 3 Hari Ram is the informant. He is uncle of

the deceased. He has supported the statement of PW 1

Kishori Lal, father of the deceased and proved the report,

Ex. A-1. According to PW 3 Hari Ram, at the place of

occurrence, photographs were taken. He has also stated

that from the house of the deceased to the place of

occurrence, pieces of broken bangles were also found.

14. PW 4 Hayat Ram has given an eye-witness

account. According to him, on 20.01.2001 at 07:30 p.m.,

when he had gone to fetch the grass, he saw the

appellants dragging the deceased, armed with weapons

and he also saw that the appellants suspended the

deceased from a tree and killed her.

15. At the very outset, this Court is of the view that

the statement of PW 4 Hayat Ram does not inspire

confidence. According to him, he had seen the appellants

killing the deceased, but he did not raise any alarm. He

did not try to rescue her. According to him, he came back

to the village and informed the villagers about the

incident. He also tells that he did not know the appellants

prior to the incident. If it is so, how could he say that the

appellants were dragging the deceased? Whatever PW 4

Hayat Ram has stated is not, in fact, the case of the

prosecution. The prosecution case is not based on direct

evidence. In his cross-examination PW 4 Hayat Ram

would submit that he did not inform PW 1 Kishori Lal

about the incident because he was not aware that the

deceased was his daughter. At page 5, this witness would

tell that when the dead body was being taken out from

the tree, he had told it to PW 1 Kishori Lal as to how she

was killed. But, PW 1 Kishori Lal has not stated about it.

PW 1 Kishori Lal has not stated that based on the

information given by PW 4 Hayat Ram, he lodged the FIR.

16. PW 5 Kripal Chand has also corroborated the

statement of PW 1 Kishori Lal and other witnesses with

regard to demand of dowry and harassment of the

deceased. He has also stated about the Panchayat, which

was convened in the house of the appellants.

17. PW 6 Narayan Singh conducted the

investigation. He prepared the site plan, Ex. A-4 and

submitted the chargesheet against the appellants.

18. PW 7 Dr. Yashpal Singh conducted the

postmortem of the deceased. According to him, following

ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the

deceased:-

"Ligature mark present over neck at

the level of thyroid cartilage about whole

circumference accept two inches space at

right mastoid region. Size 1.5 cm x whole

circumference. Base is soft. Reddish in

colour. Ligature mark well defined.

Contusion below the mark."

19. The deceased was thirty-six weeks pregnant.

According to the postmortem report, the death was as a

result of asphyxia due to strangulation.

20. PW 8 SI Chaman Singh had prepared inquest

and also prepared other police forms for the purposes of

postmortem.

21. DW 1 Suresh has stated that the deceased was

not well. She had seizure at the time of marriage. He has

done some exorcism ("Jhad Phoonk").

22. DW 2 Badlu Sah has also told that he did some

exorcism as the deceased was of unstable mind. She had

seizures.

23. DW 3 Bachi Ram was, in fact, one of the

appellants. He is father-in-law of the deceased. He has

stated that the deceased had epilepsy. She had seizures.

She would dance, cry and run everywhere. Even on

the date of marriage, she had a seizure. They got her

treated by some exorcism. She was also shown

to a Psychiatric. Dr. V.N. Rajpal treated her. He has

stated about a medical prescription, Ex. 1. According to

this witness, dowry was not demanded.

24. The appellants have been convicted under

Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and

have been sentenced, as stated hereinbefore.

25. A bare perusal of Section 304B IPC makes it

clear that in order to attract the rigors of Section 304B

IPC, the following has to be established and proved by the

prosecution:-

(i) Death of a woman due to burn and bodily

injury or otherwise than under normal

circumstances.

(ii) Such death occurred within seven years of

her marriage.

(iii) Soon before her death, she must have

been subjected to cruelty or harassment

by husband or any relative of her

husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should have

been for or in connection with the demand

of dowry.

26. The deceased was married on 08.05.1999 with

the appellant Madhvanand. She died on 20.01.2001. Her

death took place within two years of marriage. The

deceased did not die of natural death. Her death was

other than normal circumstances. This Court would

examine the cause of death also.

27. The expression "soon before her death" does

not mean "immediately before the death". These words

should be given reasonable and practical interpretation.

In the case of Uday Chakraborty and others v. State of

West Bengal, (2010) 7 SCC 518, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed "The expression "soon before her

death" has to be given its due meaning as the

legislature has not specified any time which would be

the period prior to death, that would attract the

provisions of Section 304-B IPC. The concept of

reasonable time would be applicable, which would

primarily depend upon the facts of a given case, the

conduct of the parties and the impact of cruelty and

harassment inflicted upon the deceased in relation to

demand of dowry to the cause of unnatural death of

the deceased. In our considered view, the marriage

itself has not survived even for a period of two years,

the entire period would be a relevant factor in

determining such an issue."

28. The menace of dowry, in fact, has crippled the

society. The relations had gone down to the extent that, in

fact, 304B was inserted in IPC in the year 1986. Such

death, which occurs in the house of in-laws is very hard

to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, some special

provisions were also made in the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 ("the Evidence Act"). Section 113B of the Evidence

Act permits the court to presume about death dowry. It

reads as hereunder:-

"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. ---

When the question is whether a person has committed

the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon

before her death such woman had been subjected by

such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in

connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall

presume that such person had caused the dowry

death.

Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section,

"dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in

section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

29. In order to attract the provisions of Section

304B IPC, it is not necessarily to be proved by the

prosecution that the husband or his relative had killed

the deceased. What has to be seen is that the death

occurred other than under normal circumstances.

30. In the case of Satbir Singh and another v. State

of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine 404, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court considered the suicidal or homicidal aspect of

death and observed that, in fact, death other than normal

circumstances includes homicidal or suicidal or

accidental death. In paras 24 and 25, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

"24. The second contentious part relating

to Section 304-B IPC is that it does not take a

pigeonhole approach in categorising death as

homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done

earlier. The reason for such non-categorisation is

due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise

than under normal circumstances" can, in cases,

be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However,

Section 304-B IPC endeavours to also address

those situations wherein murders or suicide are

masqueraded as accidents.

25. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of

Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any death

whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or

occurring otherwise than under normal

circumstances shall, as per the legislative

mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the

woman's husband or his relative "shall be

deemed to have caused her death" unless proved

otherwise. The section clearly specifies what

constitutes the offence of dowry death and also

identifies the single offender or multiple offenders

who has or have caused the dowry death

[refer Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [Maya

Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405 :

(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768] , Shanti v. State of

Haryana [Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1

SCC 371 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 191]".

31. PW 1 Kishori Lal is father of the deceased. He

tells that at the time of marriage, dowry was not

demanded. PW 1 Kishori Lal was asked about the timing

of demand of dowry. In the beginning line of his

cross-examination, he would submit that at the time of

marriage, no specific demand for dowry was made. But,

according to him, after marriage the demand of dowry

was made. PW 1 Kishori Lal, in his cross-examination,

has categorically stated that whenever the deceased

visited his house, she would tell that she was taunted and

harassed for the demand of dowry. He was asked about

the word "harassment" as written in his statement under

Section 161 of the Code. This witness would submit that

he has not used the word "harassment". He has used the

word "taunted". He also submits that specific demand of

Rs. 25,000/- and a scooter is told by him in the court for

the first time. But, he submits that he told it to PW 3 Hari

Ram, his brother, that the appellants have demanded

Rs. 25,000/- cash and a scooter in dowry.

32. PW 3 Hari Ram was asked about it. In page 4 of

his statement, he has revealed that since he was under

tremendous pressure when he was lodging the FIR, he

could not record about the demand of scooter. PW 2

Harish Chand has also stated about the demand of dowry

and Panchayat, which was held in the village of the

appellants.

33. PW 5 Kripal Chand has also corroborated the

statement of PW 1 Kishori Lal with regard to demand of

dowry and Panchayat. All of them have stated that they

did Panchayat in the village of the appellants, but the

appellants misbehaved with them and still continued with

their demand.

34. Within two years of marriage, the deceased

died. Her father, uncle and other witnesses, who were

part of Panchayat have stated about the demand of

dowry. Merely because the specific demand has not been

written in the FIR, it does not doubt the prosecution case.

35. This Court is of the view that the prosecution

has been able to prove that the appellants demanded

dowry and for that reason harassed and tortured the

deceased.

36. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants

would submit that the deceased committed suicide

because she was mentally unstable. In support of her

contention, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the

postmortem report to argue that, in fact, it does not reveal

much. Reference has been made to the Modi

Jurisprudence (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence &

Toxicology, Twenty-second Edition, page 270), where the

symptoms of hanging and strangulation have been

detailed. It is as hereunder:-

              Hanging                                Strangulation
1    Most suicidal                          1    Mostly homicidal
2    Face - Usually pale and petechiae      2    Face - Congested, livid and
                                                 marked with petechiae.
3    Saliva - Dribbling out of the          3    Saliva- No such dribblng.
     mouth down on the chin and
     chest.
4    Neck- Stretched and elongated in       4    Neck -Not so.
     fresh bodies.
5    External signs of asphyxia,            5    External signs of asphyxia,
     usually not well marked
                                                 very well marked (minimal if
                                                 death due to vasovaga and
                                                 caroti sinus effect).
6    Bleeding from the nose, mouth          6    Bleeding     from        the     nose,
     and ears very rare
                                                 mouth and ears may be
                                                 found.
7     Ligaturemark - Oblique, non-          7    Ligature mark- Horizontal or
     continuous placed high up in the
                                                 transverse continuous, round
     neck between the chin and the
     larynx, the base of the groove or           the neck, low down in the
     furrow being hard, yellow and
                                                 neck below the thyroid, the
     parchment-like.
                                                 base of the groove or furrow
                                                 being soft and reddish.
8    Abrasions and ecchymoses round         8    Abrasions     and    ecchymose
     about the edges of the ligature
                                                 round about the edges of the
     mark, rare.
                                                 ligature mark, common
9    Subcutaneous tissues under the         9    Subcutaneous tissues under
     mark- White, hard and glistening.
                                                 the mark- Ecchymosed.
10   Injury to the muscle of the neck -     10   Injury to the muscles of the
     Rare
                                                 neck - Common
11   Carotid arteries, internal coats       11   Carotid      arteries,         internal
     ruptured in violent cases of a long
                                                 coats ordinarily ruptured.
     drop
12   Fracture of the larynx and trachea     12   Fracture of the larynx and
     - Very rare and that too in judicial
                                                 trachea -Often found also
     hanging
                                                 hyoid bone.
13    Fracture-dislocation   of     the     13   Fracture-dislocation of the
     cervical vertebrae-Common in
                                                 cervical vertebrae-Rare
     judicial hanging
14    Scratches, abrasions and bruises      14   Scratches,                abrasions
     on the face, neck and other parts
                                                 fingernail marks and bruishes
     of the body-Usually not present
                                                 on the face neck and other





                                                  parts of the body- Usually
                                                  present.
 15     No evidence of sexual assault        15   Sometimes         evidence    of
                                                  sexual assault.
 16     Emphysematous bullae on the          16   Emphysematous bullae on the
        surface of the lungs - Not present
                                                  surface of the lungs-may be
                                                  present.

37. It is true that each and every factor, which

could have distinguished between 'hanging' and

'strangulation' has not been noted in the postmortem

report. But, merely because of it also, it cannot be said

that the postmortem report does not prove strangulation.

PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat has been cross-

examined in detail. He has stated that the ligature mark

was round the neck, except two inches below the knot. He

denied the suggestion that such ligature mark could come

due to hanging.

38. A few facts may be noted. PW 7 Dr. Yashwant

Singh Rawat, in his cross-examination, has stated that

the nose and mouth of the deceased were not bleeding. It

may be noted that in the case of hanging, the saliva

dribbles out of the mouth down on the chin and chest, as

noted by Modi. The reason for it has been stated at page

255 of the Modi's Jurisprudence as above, when it

records "Saliva is often found dribbling out of an angle

of the mouth down on the chin and chest. This is a

sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as

the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot

occur after death".

39. The inquest report does not indicate dribbling

of saliva from the mouth. The mouth was closed.

40. The postmortem report records the sign of

asphyxia. But, PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat has not

been put to cross-examination so as to shake his opinion.

According to PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, the death

was due to strangulation.

41. The inquest report, Ex. A-1 records that there

were four bangles on the right hand of the deceased and

there were two bangles on her left hand. This inquest

report further records that from the house of the deceased

to the place of occurrence, which is about 100 steps,

there were broken pieces of bangles. PW 6 Narayan Singh

had initially conducted the investigation. According to

him, he did not find any mark of dragging from the house

of the deceased to the place of occurrence.

42. On behalf of the appellants, an argument has

been raised that the deceased was epileptic. She was

under treatment. She had suicidal tendencies. A

document has been placed on behalf of the appellant,

which has been proved by DW 3 Bachi Ram as material

Ex. 1. It is a prescription of one Dr. V.N. Rajpal dated

07.04.2000. According to it, Smt. Santosi Devi was

diagnosed with epilepsy. This document cannot be read

into evidence. The doctor, who diagnosed the deceased,

has not been examined. There have been other witnesses

examined on behalf of the defence to argue that, in fact,

the deceased was epileptic. She had suicidal tendencies.

But, statements of DW 1 Suresh and DW 2 Badlu Sah do

not prove it.

43. At the time of inquest, certain photographs

have been taken, which have been proved by PW 8

Chaman Singh, IO. The negatives of these photographs

have not been proved, but reference has been made by

the learned Senior Counsel of these photographs at the

time of argument to argue that the knees as placed in

these photographs may not have placed in case of

strangulation. As stated the dead body was seated on the

ground. The height of tree was about five feet. It was not

full suspension. It has also emerged in the evidence that

the deceased had her socks, Chappals on her body and

her shawl was wrapped properly. As stated, in the inquest

it is recorded that there were pieces of broken bangles on

the way from the house of the deceased to the place of

incident. The inquest records that in one of the hands of

the deceased, there were only two bangles, whereas on

another hand there were four bangles. This Court does

not intend to discuss this aspect in greater detail. It

would be academic only.

44. The fact remains that the deceased was a

young girl of 21 years of age, who died on 20.01.2001

other than under normal circumstances. The fact remains

that, according to PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, the

deceased died as a result of asphyxia due to

strangulation. The fact remains that there were signs of

asphyxia. The deceased died other than under normal

circumstances.

45. The prosecution has been able to prove that the

deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or

in connection with demand of dowry. It was a continuous

process. On 08.05.1999 the deceased married with the

appellant Madhvanand. There was a Panchayat in

between. It has been proved by the witnesses. On

20.01.2001, the deceased was dead. Her death was other

than under normal circumstances.

46. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court

is of a view that the prosecution has been able to prove

the charge under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4

of the Act against the appellants beyond reasonable

doubts. There is no reason to make any interference and

the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

47. The appeal is dismissed.

48. The appellants Madhvanand, Devki Devi and

Bhagirathi Devi are on bail. Their bail is cancelled and the

sureties are discharged. Let the appellants be taken into

custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by

the court below.

49. Let a copy of this judgment along with the

lower court record be sent to the court concerned for

onward compliance.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.05.2022 Avneet/