GOLA PULLANNA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                     GOLA PULLANNA AND ANR.                                      A
                                      v.
                    STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                             AUGUST 13, 1996

                 [G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]                              B

          Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 148 and 302 r/w 149-12 accused
  t1ieli---Accused Nos. 2 died dwing trial Accused No. 5, 3, 5, 7 and 12 acquitted
  and Accused Nos. J, 4 6 and 8 to 11 convicted by trial court-All 7 accused
. challenged their conviction-Accused No. 1 died 'dwing the pendency of ap- C
  peal-High Court holding accused Nos. 5 and 7 were wrongly acquitted, while
  acquitting Accused Nos. 4.5, 8 and ](}-Whether the conviction of accused
  Nos. 9 and 11 can be upheld under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149----Held:
  Yes, the High Cowt recorded a categorical finding that Accused Nos. 5 and
   7 were wrongly acquitted-Therefore, even after the acquittal of Accused Nos. D
  4, 6, 8 and JO the High Court was justified in proceeding on the basis that
  more than 5 person participated in the assault.

       Evidence Act, 1872 : Ei•idence-Appreciation of-Acceptance of the
 evidence of interested witnesses.
                                                                                 E
       Held: To be sc1utinized tt:ith care and caution-No requirenient of lalv
 that their evidence can not be relied upon in the absence uf independent
 co"oboration.

       One 'S', along with his uncle 'B' (PW-1) and his grandson 'J' (PW-2),
 had gone to his lime garden for watering lime trees. At about sunset time       F
 they started returning aftd when they had come near the bus stand, Accused
 No. 1 alongwith other 11 accused assaulted 'S' with hunting sickles, dag·
 gers, spears and hatchets, because of enmity. "S" died on the spot. "J"
 remained near the dead body and 'Y' (P.W. 2) went and lodged a complaint
 (Exh.P·l) in writing. All the accused were tried for offences punishable        G
 under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and in the alternative for the
 offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. Accused
 No. 2 died during the pendency of the trial. The sessions judge believed the
 presence of the three eye-witnesses to the extent of their seeing the attack
 against the deceased with deadly weapons like spears, hatchets and hunting
 sickles. However, in view of the corrections made in the names of Accused       H
                                     603
    604                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A Nos.Sand 7 in the written complaint (Exh. Pl) the sessions Judge doubted
    their participation in the offence and aclJuitted them. Accused No. 3 and 12
    were also given the benefit of doubt. The rest of the accused that is Accused
    Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 8 to 11 were convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read
    with Section 149 I.P.C.

B         All the 7 accused challenged their conviction. During the pendency of
    the appeal Accused No. 1 died. The High Court did not agree with the trial
    court and held that Accused Nos.Sand 7 were wrongly acquitted. The High
    Court also rejected the contention that there was delay' in lodging the first
    information report and that it was recorded after deliberation. The High
c   Court believed that P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were the eye-witnesses to the
    incident but observed that as they were interested witnesses their evidence
    was required to be scrutinized with caution. 'The High Court further held
    that their evidence did not suffer from material discrepancies. As regards
    Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 the High Court gave them the benefit of doubt.
    As regards other accused the High Court held that their acquittal could not
D   be set aside in absence of an acquittal appeal against them. However, the
    conviction of Accused Nos. 9and11 was upheld. Thus, the conviction of the
    appellants and the sentences awarded to them were confirmed by the High
    Court and to that extent the appeal was dismissed.


E          In Appeal to this court it was contended for the appellant that admit-
    tedly, there was enmity between the party of the deceased and the party of
    the accused and as the three eye-witnesses belonged to the party of the
    deceased their evidence should not have been accepted without indepden-
    dent corroboration; that correction of names of Accused Nos. S, 7 and 11
F   in the written complaint clearly indicates thatthere were deliberations after
    the complaint was given to the police and those a,£cused have been falsely
    implicated subsequently; that in their evidence the eye-witnesses had im-
    proved upon their versions before the police in .order to bring their tes-
    timony in conformity with the medical evidence they had stated before the
    court that blows with hatchets were also given to the deceased and that
G   Accused Nos.Sand 7 were acquitted by the trial court and Accused Nos. 4,
    6, 8 and 10 having been acquitted by the High Court the conviction of the
    appellants under Sections 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 could
     not have been upheld by the High Court.


H          Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                       GOlA PULL.ANNA v. STATE                            605

       HELD : 1. The fact that there was enmity between the two factions         A
was not in dispute and both the courts belows have appreciated the evidence
of eye-witnesses bearing that aspect in mind. The High Court hits rightly
observed that they being interested witnesses their evidence was required
to be scrutinised with care and caution. The submissio\i that their evidence
could not have been relied upon in absence of independent corroboration
cannot be accepted as there is no such requirement of law. Even after close
                                                                                 B
scrutiny both the courts thought it fit to rely upon their evidence and it
cannot be said that they committed any error in doing so. [608-H; 609-A-B]

      2. Neither the time interval nor the nature of corrections indicate
that the corrections were made with a view to falsely implicate Accused          C
Nos. 5, 7 and 11. So far as Accused No. 11 is concerned it was not even
suggested that there was any other person in that village by similar name.
Therefore, no inference can be drawn from the said corrections that they
were made ma/a fide with a view to falsely involve.those accused. [609-H;
610·A]
                                                                                 D
       3. There is no inconsistency found between the medical evidence and
the evidence of P.W. 1. A hatchet is not very different from an axe, the
difference being in size only. Therefore, the discrepancy appearing in the
evidence of P.W.1 is not of such a nature as would create any doubt regard-
ing participation in the attack by Accused Nos. 5 and 11. Challenge to the       E
evidence cf P.W. 2 on the same ground is really misconceived. An atempt
was made by the defence in the cross-examination of this witness to estab-
lish that before the police he had not stated tliat Accused Nos. 5 and 11 had
hatchets. He denied that suggestion and maintained that he had not stated
so before the police. P.W. 9, the investigating officer, in his cross examina-
tion stated that such a statement was made by the witness before him. Thus       F
there was no inconsistency at all between his earlier version and the version
before the court. P.W. 3, stated generally that the accused had assaulted the
deceased with hunting sickles, spears, hatchets and daggers. His evidence
as regards the weapon carried by Accused No. 5 is in consistent With the
evidence of other two eye witnesses in as much as he stated that Accused G
No. 5 had a spear at that time. This witness had seen the assault from a
little distance and, therefore, he appears to have committed a mistake while
describing the weapon carried by Accused No. 5. As the assault was sudden
and it had taken place at sun-set time much importance cannot be given to
such discrepancies and it would not be proper to reject the evidence of the
eye witnesses because of such discrepancies. (610-H; 611-A-D]                 H
    606                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          4. The High Court has recorded a categorical finding, after re-ap-
    preciating the evidence, that Accused Nos. 5 and 7 were wrongly acquitted
    by the Sessions Judge. Therefore, even after the acquittal of Accused Nos.
    4, 6, 8 and 10 the High Court was justified in proceeding on the basis that
    there were more than five persons out of the named accused who had
B   participated in the assault on the deceased and confirming the conviction
    of Accused Nos. 9 and 11 under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C.
                                                                     [613-C-D]
         Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [1964] 1 SCR 678 and
    Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1976] 3 SCR 651, referred to.

C         Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1991] 1 SCC 519 relied
    on.

          Marachalil Pak/at v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 648; Sunder Singh
    v. State of Punjab, AIR (1962) SC 1211 and Harshad Singh v. State of
    Gujarat, [1976] 4 SCC 640, cited.
D
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    120 of 1984.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.82 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in Crl. A. No. 756 of 1981.
E
          K. Madhava Reddy and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants.

          Anil Kumar for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F         NANAVATI, J. This appeal by Original Accused nos. 9 and 11 arises
    out of the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
    in Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 1981 confirming the order of conviction and
    sentence passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah in Sessions
    Case No. 45 of 1980.
G         On 8.9.1979 at about 4.30 P.M. Sivarami Reddi alias Sivanna of
    Village Kondapurarn along with his uncle Bodella Yellareddi (P.W.1) and
    his grandson Jayachandra Reddy (P.W. 2) had gone to his lime garden for
    watering lime trees. At about sunset time they started returning and when
    they had come near the bus stand, Accused No. 1 along with other 11
H   accused assaulted Sivanna with hunting sickles, daggers, spears and
               GOLAPULIANNAv. STATE[NANAVATI,J.]                        607

hatchets, because of the enmity between the party of Sivanna and the party     A
of Accused No. 1 Sivanna died on the spot. Jayachandra Reddy, remained
near the dead body and Yellareddy (P.W. 1) went to the police station. He
gave a complaint (Exh. P-1) in writing and on that basis an offence was
registered. All the 12 accused were chargesheeted by the police and they
came to be tried in the Court of Sessions, Cuddapah for the offences
punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and in the alter-      B
native, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
I.P.C. During the pendency of the trial Accused No. 2 died and the trial
proceeded against the remaining 11 accused.

       In order to prove its case the· prosecution mainly relied upon the      C
evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Bodella Yellareddy, P.W.
2 Jayachandra Reddy and P.W. 3 Shaik Bashu. The learned Session Judge
believe,d the presence of the three eye-witnesses near the scene of offence
and held that their evidence deserved to be believed "to the extent of their
seeing the attack against the deceased with deadly weapons like spears,
hatchets and hunting sickles." However, in view of the corrections made in     D
the names of Accused Nos. 5 and 7 in the written complaint (Exh. P-1) the
learned Session Judge doubted their participation in the offence and
acquitted them giving benefit of doubt. As it was found that Accused Nos.
3 and 12 were of a different village and had no motive to participate in the
attack they were also given benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge       E
convicted the rest of the accused that is Accused Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 8 to 11
under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for life.


       All those 7 accused challenged their conviction by filing an appeal     F
in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal Accused No.1 died.
The High Court did not agree with the finding recorded by the trial court
that there were interpolations in the written complaint (Exh. P-1) and held
that Accused Nos. 5 and 7 were wrongly acquitted. The High Court also
rejected the contention raised on behalf of the defence that there was delay   G
in lodging the first information report and that it was recorded after
deliberation and consultations. The High Court believed that P.W. 1, P.W.
2 and P.W. 3 were the eye-witnesses to the incident but observed that as
they were interested witnesses their evidence was required to be scrutinised
with care and caution. After carefully scrutinising their evidence the High
Court held that it did not suffet from material discrepancies or variations    H
    608                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   as contended by the defence. As regards Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 who
    according to the eye-witnesses had given spear blows to the deceased the
    High (;ourt held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not consistent
    with respect -to the part played by them, and also with the medical evidence
    and, therefore, they deserved to be given benefit of doubt. Believing the
    presence of the other accused except Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10, the High
B   Court held that even though the acquittal of the acquitted accused could
    not be set aside in absence of an acquittal appeal against them, the
    conviction of Accused Nos. 9 and 11 under Section 302 r~ad with Section
    149 could be upheld. Thus, the conviction of the appellants and the
    sentences awacded to them were confirmed by the High Court and to that
c   extent the appeal was dismissed.

           The learned counsel for the appellant raised four contentions before
    us. His first Gontention was that admittedly, there was enmity between the
    party of the deceased and the party of the accused and as the three
D   eye-witnesses belonged to the party of the deceased their evidence should
    not have been accepted without independent corroboration. The second
    contention was that correction of names of Accused Nos. 5,7, and 11 in the
    written complaint (Exh. P-1) clearly indicates that there were deliberations
    after the complaint was given to the police and those accused have been
    falsely implicated subsequently. The next contention was that in their
E   evidence the eye-witnesses had improved upon their versions before the
    police and in order to bring their testimony in conformity with the medical
    evidence they had stated before the court that blows with hatchets were
    also given to the deceased. It was lastly contended that Accused Nos. 5
    and 7 were acquitted by the trial court and Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10        ..
F   having been acquitted by the High Court the conviction of the appellants
    under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 could not have
    been upheld by the High Court. It was also submitted that even though the
    High Court has reversed the finding \vith respect to the involvement _of
    Accused Nos. 5 and 7, in view of their acquittal, the acts alleged to have
    been committed by them cannot be taken into consideration either for
G   inferring the common object of the unlawful assembly or for holding the
    appellants vicariously liable.

           The fact that there was enmity between the two factions was not in
     dispute and both the courts below have appreciated the evidence of the
H    eye-witnesses bearing that aspect in mind. The High Court has rightly
               GOLAPULlANNAv. STATE[NANAVATI,J.j                      609

observed that they being interested witnesses their evidence was required A
to be scrutinised with care and caution. The submission of the learned
counsel that their evidence could not have been relied upon in absence of
independent corroboration cannot be accepted as there is no such require-
ment of law. Even afte.r close scrutiny both the cou5ts though it fit to rely
upon their evidence and it cannot be said that they committed any error
                                                                              B
in doing so.

      There is no substance in the second contention also. The corrections
which we find in the complaint are with respect to the names of Accused
Nos. 5 and 7 and the name of the father of Accused No. 11. Initially, the
name of Accused No. 5 was mentioned as Nagireddi's son but it was C
corrected to read Nagireddi's son Obula Reddy. Accused Nos. Ts name
was written as Chinna Narayana Reddy but it was corrected to read as
Chinna Venkata-Narayanareddi. The name of the father of Accused No.
11 was written as Bali Reddi but it was corrected and Obula Reddi was
written.                                                                   D
      P.W.l has explained that when the complaint was read over to him
he realised that he had not given the names of Accused Nos. 5, 7 and the
name of the father of Accused No. 11 correctly. Initially he had described
Accused No. 5 as Nagireddi's son and later he became more exact by
stating his name as Bodela Nagireddi's son Obul Reddy. He corrected the E
name of Accused No. 7 from Bodela Subbarayudu's son Chinna Narayana
Reddy to. Bodela Subbarayudu's son Chinna Venkata Narayana Reddy.
He had wrongly mentioned father's name of Accused No. 11 as Kabugota
Bali Reddi. As his father's correct name is Obula Reddi he struck off
Bali Reddi and wrote Obula Reddi. These corrections cannot be F
regarded as improvements suggestive of deliberations and false involve-
ment. The incident in this case had taken place at about 6.30 P.M. The
offence was registered at 7.00 P.M. on the basis of the written complaint
given by P.W.1. We find from the first information report that the
distance between the place where the offence took place and the police
station was half a kilometer. Thus, within a very short time the written G
complaint was prepared by P.W. 1 and handed over to the officer
incharge of the Kondapuram Police Station and immediately thereafter
on the basis of the said complaint the first information report ·was
prepared. Neither the time interval nor the nature of corrections indi-
cate that the corrections were made with a view to falsely implicate H
    610                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Accused Nos. 5, 7 and 11. So far as Accused No. 11 is concerned it was
    not even suggested that there was any other person in Village
    Muthucumarri by name "Sambasiva Reddy son of Kabugota Balireddy".
    Therefore, no inference can be drawn from the said corrections that they
    were made ma/a fide with a view to falsely involve those accused.

B
         It was next contended that the eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W. 2 have
  deliberately made a material improvement in their evidence as regards the
  weapons carried by Accused Nos. 5 and 11 so as to bring their evidence
  in line with the medical evidence and, therefore, their evidence should not
  have been believed without independent corroboration at least with respect
C to Accused Nos. 5 and 11. In his written complaint P.W. 1 had stated that
  the accused had assaulted Sivanna with sickles, spears and axes. In the
  inquest report (Exh. P-5) it was mentioned that the deceased died due to
  injuries caused to him with hunting sickles, daggers and spears.· But in his
  evidence P.W. 1 stated that the injuries to the deceased were caused with
D hunting sickles, daggers, hatchets and spears. In his cross-examination he
  admitted that he had not referred to hatchets in bis complaint and that be
  knows the difference between an axe and a hatchet. Thus there is a
  discrepancy between bis evidence and what he stated before the police as
  regards the weapons with which Accused Nos. 5 and 11 bad caused injuries
  to the deceased. However, it would not be proper to infer therefrom that
E the witness was deliberately making an improvement with a view to bring
  his evidence in line with the medic~! evidence. P.W. 1 was the first witness
  to be examined in the case and there was nothing either in the post mortem
  notes or in any other material on record to show that the injuries found on
  the deceased could not have been caused by an axe. Therefore, it cannot
F be stated that he was deliberately changing the weapons carried by Ac-
  cused Nos. 5 and 11 with a view to make bis evidence consistent with the
  medical evidence. Doctor who performed the post mortem exaniination
  was examined two days after the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 was
   recorded. A question was put to him in his cross-examination that if the
   victim was lying on the ground immobile and if a blow was given whether
G any of the injuries noticed on the deceased could have been caused by such
   a blow. The doctor replied in the negative. It was not positively put to the
   doctor that none of the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased was
   possible by a hatchet blow. It was also not put to him that none of the
   injuries noticed by him could have been caused by an axe. We, therefore,
H do not find any inconsistency between the medical evidence and the
                       GOLAPULLANNAv. STATE [NANAVATI,J.j                     611

         evidence of P.W.l. A hatchet is not very different from an axe, the dif- A
     •   ference being in size only. Therefore, the discrepancy appearing in the
         evidence of P.W. 1 is not of such a nature as would create any doubt
         regarding participation in the attack by Accused Nos. 5 and 11. Challenge
         to the evidence of PW. 2 on the same ground is really misconceived. An
         attempt was made by the defence in the cross-examination of this witness
                                                                                      B
         to establish that before the police he had not stated that Accused Nos. 5
         and 11 had hatchets. He denied that suggestion and maintained that he
         had so stated before the police. P.W.9, the investigating officer, in his
         cross-examination stated that such a statement was ·made by the witness
         before him. Thus there was no i'lconsistency at all between his earlier
         version and the version before the court. P.W. 3 stated generally that the c
         accused had assaulted the deceased with hunting sickles, spears, hatchets
         and daggers. His evidence as regards the weapon carried by Accused No.
         5 is inconsistent with the evidence of other two eye witnesses inasmuch as
         he stated that Accused No. 5 had a spear at that time. This witness had
         seen the assault from a little distance and, therefore, he appears to have D
         committed a mistake while describing the weapon carried by Accused No.
         5. As the· assault was sudden and it had taken place at the sunset time much
         importance cannot be given to such discrepancies and it would not be
          proper to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses because of such dis-
          crepancies.
                                                                                    E
               Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel, relying upon the
         decisions of this Court in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra,
         [1%4] 1 SCR 678 and Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1976] 3 SCR 651,
         that as the Accused Nos. 5 and 7 were acquitted by the trial Court and
         Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 came to be acquitted by the High Court the      F
         appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 read with
         Section 149 l.P.C.

               In Krishna Govind Patil' case (supra) it has been held that where
         more than one person are charged with substantive offence read with
         section 34 and if others are acquitted conviction of one under substantive G
         offence read with Section 34 cannot be sustained because before a court
         could convict a person under Section 302 read with Section 34, it should
         come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior concert with
         one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said
         offence. When the other accused were acquitted either on the ground that H




..
    612                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   the evidence was not acceptable or by giving benefit of doubt to them, the
    result in law would be the same; it would mean that they did not take part        •
    in the offence. If they did not act conjointly with the remaining accused,
    the remaining accused could not have acted conjointly with them. In the
    absence of any evidence to indicate that the persons other than the remain-
    ing accused participated in the offence, his conviction under Section 302
B   read with Section 34 cannot be sustained.

          In the case of Maina Singh v. State of Rajastha11, [1976] 3 SCR 651
    this Court has held that it is not permissible to invoke Section 149 or
    Section 34 LP.C. in the case where the accused is charged with commission
c   of an offence only with named persons as co-accused and others have been
    acquitted. It was submitted that when other accused are acquitted by giving
    them benefit of doubt then the remaining accused can be convicted only
    for his own act and not for the acts committed by others.

          Both these cases were considered by this Court in Brat/ti alias
D
    Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1991] 1 SCC 519 and distinguished on
    the ground that "in none of them the appellate court is shown to have
    disagreed with the trial court's conclusion on facts, and the appellate court
    has proceeded on the footing that the order of acquittal recorded is
    correct. 11
E
           This Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Marachalil Pak/at
    v. State of Madras, AIR (1954) SC 648, Sunder Singh v. State of Punjab,
    AIR (1962) SC 1211 and Harshadsingh v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 4 SCC
    640 has held that "before Sections 34, 149 or 120B can be applied, the court
F   must find with certainty that there were at least two persons sharing the
    common intention or five persons sharing the common object or two
    persons entering into an agreement. The principle of vicarious liability does
    not depend upon the necessity to convict a requisite number of persons; it
    depends upon proof of facts beyond reasonable doubt which makes such
G   a principle applicable." This Court has also held that "in the matter of
    appreciation of the evidence the powers of the appellate court are as wide
    as that of the trial court. It has full power to review the whole evidence
    and all relevant circumstances to arrive at its own conclusion about the
    guilt or innocence of the accused. When several persons are alleged to have
    committed an offence in furtherance of the common intention and all
H   except one are acquitted, it is open to the appellate court to indirectly or
               GOlAPULIANNAv. STATE[NANAVATI,J.]                           613

incidentally find out on a reappraisal of the evidence that some of the           A
accused persons have been wrongly acquitted, although it could not inter-
fere with such acquittal in the absence.of an appeal by the State Govern-
ment. The effect of such a finding is not to reverse the order of acquittal
into one of conviction or visit the acquitted person with criminal liability.
The finding is relevant only in invoking against the comicted person his
                                                                                  B
constructive criminality. Where the evidence examined by the appellate
court unmistakably proves that the appellant was guilty under Section 34
having shared a common intention with the other accused who were
acquitted and that the acquittal was bad, there is nothing to prevent the
appellate court from expressing that view and giving th> finding and
determining the guilt of the appellant before it on the basis of that finding."   c
      In this case, the High Court has recorded a categorical finding, after
reapreciating the evidence, that Accused Nos. 5, and 7 were wrongly
acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, even after the acquittal
of Accused Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 10 the High Court was justified in proceeding
on the basis that there were more than five persons out of the named              D
accused who had participated in the assault on the deceased "nd confirm-
ing the conviction of Accused Nos. 9 and 11 under Section 302 read with
Section 149 I.P.C.

       As we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised on        E
behalf of the appellants this appeal is dismissed. The appellants were
ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. There-
fore, they are ordered to sarrender immediately to serve out the remaining
sentence.

S.S.                                                       Appeal dismissed.