RAJENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL

                       [2013] 2 S.C.R. 783


                       RAJENDRA SINGH                                  A
                                 v.
                  STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1702 of 2008)
                         APRIL 11, 2013
                                                                       B
  [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

      PENAZ.. CODE, 1860:

        s. 302 - Murder - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by     c
  High Court - Held: The medical evidence is quite consistent
  with the prosecution case that the deceased was killed by
  inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors - Both the eye-witnesses
  fully supported the prosecution case in regard to the assault
  by appellant on deceased with a pair of scissors -                   0
  Discrepancies between statements of two eye-witnesses
1 highlighted by trial court cannot be a ground for rejecting their

  deposition entirely - High Court has rightly rejected the view
  taken by trial court as wholly untenable and has rightly
  accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses in order to           E
  bring home the guilt of the appellant - Maxim, falsus in uno,
  falsus in omnibus - Evidence.

      An FIR for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC was
  lodged against the accused-appellant, who was a tailor
 by profession. The prosecution case was that one 'KS',                F
 the brother of PW-1, had given some cloth to the appellant
 for stitching; that prior to the date of occurrence there
 was a quarrel between the two over the delay in getting
 the cloth stitched; that on the date of occurrence, when
 'KS', while returning home, reached in front of the shop              G
 of the accused, the latter came with a pair of scissors in
 his hand and attacked 'KS' who ran for his life, but the
 accused chased and caught hold of him and gave him
 several blows by the scissors. The incident was
                             783                                       H .
    784      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A witnessed by many persons including PW-3 (the wife of
  victim) and PW-2, who took the victim to hospital where
  he was declared brought dead. The trial court acquitted
  the accused, but the High Court convicted him u/s 302
  IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
B
       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The medical evidence is quite consistent
  with the prosecution case that the deceased was killed
  by inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors. It is undeniable
C that both PW.2 and PW.3 fully supported the prosecution
  case in regard to the assault by the appellant on the
  deceased with a pair of scissors. PW.3, the wife of the
  deceased also deposed before the court regarding the
  genesis of the occurrence i.e., the quarrel between the
D deceased and the appellant that had taken place on the
  previous evening. Further, the deposition of PW.3 in
  regard to the assault by the appellant on the deceased
  is quite graphic. [para 10 and 15] [789-G-H; 790-E-F]

E      1.2 There is no reason for the trial court to come to
  the conclusion that PW.2 and PW.3 were speaking falsely
  and were trying to hide the relationship between PW.2 and
  the deceased or that he lived in the house of the
  deceased as a tenant. In the first place, no such inference
F is possible on the basis of the depositions of PW.2 and
  PW.3 and, secondly, and more importantly, even if it is
  assumed that the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 in this
  regard were incorrect, that cannot be the ground to reject
  their deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound
  in respect of the main prosecution case. In our system
G of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not
  followed. The testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3 are wholly
  reliable and there is no reason not to accept the same.
  [para 27, 28 and 32] [794-E-H; 795-F-G]

H         1.3 Apart from the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3, there
   RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UITARANCHAL                      785


 are other circumstances that lend credence to the                    A
 prosecution case. The Investigating Officer (PW.11)
 stated that in the course of interrogation the appellant
 volunteered to produce the scissors used for killing the
 deceased from his shop. He took the Investigating
 Officer to his shop, opened it with the keys kept in his             B
 pocket and recovered the blood stained scissors from
 under the shop counter and produced it before the
 Investigating Officer. The recovery is supported by PW.6
 who signed the recovery mem9. [para 33-35] (795-G-H;
 796-A-C]                                                             C
       1.4 On a careful consideration of the materials on
  record, this Court is of the view that the High Court has
. rightly rejected the view taken by the trial court as wholly
  untenable and has rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2
  and PW.3 in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant.         D
  [para 36] [796-D-E]
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
 No. 1702 of 2008.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2008 of the              E
 High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No.
 1174 of 2001 (Old No. 303of1991).
     Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Sounak S. Das, Rupi Sagar (for
 Kusum Chaudhary) for the Appellant.
                                                                      F
     Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Amit Kumar Singh, Brijesh Panchal,
 Aishverya Shandilya for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the          G
 judgment and order dated April 30, 2008 passed by the
  Uttarakhand High Court in Government Appeal No.1174 of
 2001 (Old No.303 of 1991 ). By the impugned judgment, the
 High Court allowed the Government Appeal, set aside the
 judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, and finding the   H
    '786     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A appellant guilty of the offence of murder convicted him under
  section 302 of the Penal Code and gave him the sentence of
  rigorous imprisonment for life.

         2. The case of the prosecution is based on a written report
B dated July 26, 1988 submitted at Police Station Dehradun by
  one Vijay Singh s/o Puran Singh Rana (hereinafter referred to
  as "the informant"). In the written report it was stated that the
  informant's elder brother, namely, Kishan Singh Rana (the
  deceased) was a peon in the Bank of India, Rajpur Road
  Branch, Dehradun. He had given a pair of pants and some
C cloth for stitching to Rajendra Singh tailor (the appellant), whose
  shop is on the road just near their house. The appellant did not
  return the stitched clothes even after several days and on the
  evening prior to the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel
  between the informant's brother and the appellant on that issue.
D On July 26, 1988 (the date of occurrence) the informant's
  brother had gone to the bank as usual on his motor cycle. He
  returned from the bank at about 1.00 p.m. and as he reached
  in front of the appellant's shop, he got down from the motor cycle
  as the road was broken at that point. At that instant, the
E appellant came out of his shop carrying a pair of scissors in
  his hands; hurling abuses, he came down to the road and
  attacked the informant's brother with the scissors with the intent
  to kill him. In order to save his life, Kishan Singh Rana ran down
  the road but the appellant chased him and caught him after
F some distance in front of Chintamani's house. At that spot he
  gave the informant's brother many blows by the scissors, one
  after the other. Kishan Singh Rana fell down bleeding on the
  road. It was further stated in the written report that besides the
  informant, Makhan Singh (PW.2), Laxman (Motor) Auto
G Mechanic (not examined) and his sister-in-law, Deepa (the wife
  of the deceased - PW.3) and many other persons and women
  of the area witnessed the occurrence. After assaulting the
  deceased, the appellant fled away from there. It was further
  stated in the written report that Makhan Singh took the
H informant's brother to Dun Hospital, where he was declared
  RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL                     787
              [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
brought dead. The written report concluded with the request to      A
take legal action against the appellant.

     3. The written report submitted by Vijay Singh was
incorporated in the first information report_; (report No.230)
giving rise to criminal case No.483/88/-under section 302 IPC,      8
P.S. Dehradun.

    4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet
and the appellant was put on trial on the charge under section
302 of the Penal Code.
                                                                    c
     5. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined 11
witnesses. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 are the eye witnesses of the
occurrence, of whom PW.1 is also the first informant. PW.4 is
one of the witnesses of the recovery of blood stained and plain
earth and a chappal from the place of occurrence. He also           D
identified his signature on the site plan (Ex.Ka-3) of the place
of occurrence. PW.5 is another witness of the recovery of blood
stained and plain earth, two chappals and one sandle from t.he
place of occurrence. He identified his signature on the seizure
memo (Ex.La-3). PW.6 and PW.7 are witnesses of the                  E
recovery of the scissors from the appellant's shop. PW.8 is the
doctor who had conducted post-mortem on the body of the
deceased. PW.9 is a formal witness, the scribe.of the chik FIR.
PW.10 is a Sub-Inspector of Police who had examined the
place of occurrence and had seized the articles from there.
                                                                    F
PW.11 is the Investigating Officer of the case.

      6. The trial court found that there were a number of
discrepancies in the depositions of the eye-witnesses and held
that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge against
the appellant. It, accordingly, acquitted the appellant by the      G
judgment and order dated November 16, 1990.

    7. The State Government filed an appeal against the
judgment of the trial court and the High Court took the view that
the reasons given by the trial court for not accepting the          H
    788       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A statements of PW.2 and PW.3 were specious and quite
  untenable. The High Court found that both PW.2 and PW.3 are
  wholly reliable witnesses and there was no reason not to accept
  their evidences. It, accordingly, set aside the judgment passed
  by the trial court and convicted and sentenced the appellant,
B as noted above. · ·

          8. The appellant is now in appeal before this Court.

       9. Before proceeding to examine the ocular evidence
  adduced by the prosecution in support of its case, we may first
C see the medical evidence. As noted above, PW.8 conducted
  the post mortem on the body of Kishan Singh Rana on July 27,
  1987. He found as many as 16 injuries on the body of the
  deceased which are as under:-

D          "1. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side
           of chest, 9 cm below left nipple midline direction backward
          'and medially.

          2. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on left side
          of abdomen, 8 cm below injury No.1 and 11 cm away from
E         the umbilicus.

          3. Stab wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on left side of
          abdomen direction medially backward and downward.

          4. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on back of left elbow and arm.
F
          5. Contusion 22 cm x 3 cm on right arm extending from
          right shoulder up to elbow (front aspect) .
      •
          6. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of forehead
G         x scalp deep, 6 cm above outer angle of right eye.

          7. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of
          chest lower part on ant axillary line 12 cm below right nipple
          going upward medially and backward, 12 cm below right
          nipple.
H
  RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARANCHAL                     789
              [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
    8. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side          A
    of chest in post axillary line 6 cm behind injury No.7.

    9. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on back of right side x cavity
    deep going downwards backwards 7 cm below injury No.8.

    10. Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right buttock x muscle deep        B
    15 cm below injury No.9 and 5 cm away from vert. column.

    11. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x cavity deep on right side
    of back, 5 cm away from injury No.9 direction medially and
    forward.                                                         c
    12. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on right side of back x cavity
    deep, 6 cm above injury No.11 direction medially and
    forward.

    13. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on right side of chest x            D
    cavity deep over right back, 10 cm away from injury No.12
    over the inferior angle of scapula direction forward, medially
    and downwards, 10 cm above injury No.12.

    14. St~b wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on right side of back of            E
    chest 8 cm above injury No.13 and 15 cm away from
    midline over the upper part of scapula. Direction
    backward, medially and upward.

    15. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x cavity deep 5 cm away
    from vert. column and 8 cm away from injury No.14.               F

    16. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep on left
    side of lower chest back going downward forward and
    medially 4 ems away from midline, at L2 level."

     10. Here, it may be noted that apart from injuries 4 and 5      G
which are contusions that may have been caused due to fall,
the re~ 14 are stab injuries. The medical evidence is, thus,
quite consistent with the prosecution case- that the deceased
was killed by inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors.
                                                                     H
    790       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         11. Let us now come to the ocular evidence.

       12. The informant Vijay Singh who is the younger brother
  of the deceased was examined as PW.1. In his examination-
  in-chief he fully supported the prosecution case but in course
  of cross-examination in paragraph 12 of his deposition he
B stated as under:-

          " ........... On the day of occurrence I had gone to school. I
          had come back from school at 2.30 P.M. when I came back
          then I was informed that my brother was killed. People
C         were weeping in the house. Then I had gone to hospital.
          Scissor blow was not given in my presence."

         13. It is for the reason of this statement that the trial court
    discarded the evidence of PW .1.

D        14. It is difficult to fault the trial court for rejecting the
    evidence of PW.1 but let us now see the evidences of PW.2
    and PW.3.

        15. It is undeniable that both PW.2 and PW.3 fully
E supported the prosecution case in regard to the assault by the
  appellant on the deceased .with a pair of scissors. PW.3, the
  wife of the deceased also deposed before the court regarding
  the genesis of the occurrence i.e., the quarrel between the
  deceased and the appellant that had taken place on the
F evening before the date of occurrence over the appellant's
  failure to return the clothes given by the deceased for stitching
  even after a number of days. Further, the deposition of PW.3
  in regard to the assault by the appellant on the deceased is
  quite graphic.

G      16. The trial court, however, highlighted certain
  discrepancies between the statements of PW.2 and PW.3 and
  for that reason found them to be unreliable. Those very
  discrepancies were emphasized by the counsel for the
  appellant to urge before this Court that the judgment of the trial
H court was quite sound and the High Court was in error in
   RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARANCHAL                       791
               [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
 reversing that judgment and holding the appellant guilty of the· A
 charge.

     17. In order to appreciate the view taken by the trial court
 and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in its
 support we may advert to the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3.            8
       18. PW.2 Makhan Singh stated before the court that at the
 time of the occurrence he was not a tenant of the deceased.
 He further said that he had not said to Darogaji that he was a
 tenant in the house of Kishan Singh and he did not know how
 he (Darogaji) had so written in his statement. He further stated      C
 that in those days he was not working in any factory and he had
 not said that he was working in a factory. He had given (the
 No.) 119/3 as his address. That house belonged to the
 deceased. He was a resident of Tehri Garhwal and the
 deceased too was a resident of Tehri Garhwal. They thus,              D
 belonged to the same place. They also belonged to the same
 caste. He knew Kishan Singh and Rajendra Singh from before.
 He also said that he had no relationship with Kishan Singh.

       19. PW.2 was recalled for further evidence. On recall he        E
 reiterated that he had no relationship with the deceased Kishan
 Singh. He was then shown an application that was marked as
 Exhibit Ka-10 and he admitted that it was written in his hand
 and it was given at the Drona Hotel. In that application it was
 stated that his "Chachera Bhai" (paternal cousin), Kishan Singh
 had met with a tragic accident and for that reason he was
                                                                       F
 unable to report for duty from July 26 to July 30, 1988. He further
 stated that he had given the number of the house of Kishan
 Singh because the place where he stayed had no number.

       20. PW.3, the wife of the deceased denied before the court      G
  that Makhan Singh lived in their house as a tenant. She further
  said that Makhan Singh lived in Indra Colony and she did not
  know Makhan Singh before the occurrence. She further said
. that she had seen him first when the occurrence took place and
  she came to know his name when it was said to her by the             H
     792      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A    police. The police had come to her house at 5.00 to 6.00 P.M.
     She did not remember whether or not Makhan Singh was with
     them at that time.

      21. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.11. No
B question was asked to him with reference to any statement of
  Makhan Singh recorded under section 161 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure. He, too, was recalled for further evidence
  and on recall he said that Makhan Singh addressed Deepa-
  PW.3 as "Bhabhi".

C          22. In the statement of the appellant recorded under
      section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the court put
    · to him the following question:-

                "lt has come in the statement of Shri Naresh Pal
0          Yadav, SI PW.11 that Makhan Singh had called Deepa as
           "Bhabhi". What do you have to say in this regard?

           Ans.: She is real Bhabhi (sister-in-law). Witness Makhan
           Singh lives with his Bhabhi."

E         23. The depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 are discussed by
     the trial court in paragraph 13 of its judgment where it made
     the following observations:

           "Now, there remains the testimony of Makhan Singh Rana
           (PW.2) and Smt. Deepa PW.3. Makhan Singh Rana
F
           (PW.2) tried to conceal the relationship between him and
           the deceased. Makhan Singh PW.2 stated that he had no
           relationship with Kishan Singh, deceased. He further
           stated that he was not the tenant of Kishan Singh. He further
           stated that he had not told the Investigating Officer that he
G          was the tenant of Kishari Singh in that house, but the
           Investigation Officer stated in his statement that Makhan
           Singh told that he was the tenant and he gave the address
           of his house 119/3 Nai Basti. Naresh Pal Yadav, SHO
           PW.11 stated that Makhan Singh told Deepa as his
H          Bhabhi. Makhan PW.2 stated in his re-examination that
  RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL                  793
              [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
    he had written in the application Ex. KA-10 Kishan Singh      A
    as cousin brother. He stated that this fact was written in
    the application wrongly, but he has not stated the reasons
    why this fact was written in the application wrongly.
    Moreover, Ghanshyam Das DW.2 stated that the
    application for Ration-Card of Makhan Singh was on the        B
    address of 119/3 Nai Basti, Chukhuwala. Smt. Deepa
    PW3 also stated in his (sic. her) cross-examination that
    Makhan Singh was not the cousin of her husband. She
    stated in her cross-examination that she did not know
    Makhari Singh before the incident. When this accident took    c
    place she knew the name of Makhan Singh. The police
    personnel told the name of Makhan Singh, then she knew
    the name of Makhan Singh. Thus both the witnesses
    Makhan Singh PW2 and Smt. Deepa PW3 are
    intentionally concealing their relationship. It is highly
                                                                  0
    strange that Smt. Deepa does not know the name of her
    husband's cousin."

      24. The above quoted passage from the trial court
judgment suffers from some errors of fact. We have perused
 the evidence of PW.11 more than once but we failed to notice     E
any statement in his deposition that Makhan Singh had given
 his address as house No.119/3, Nai Basti and had told him that
 he was a tenant of the deceased. As a matter of fact, it was
 PW.2, Makhan Singh himself who truthfully accepted that in his
statement before the Investigating Officer he had given his       F
address as No. 119/3 which was the house of Kishan Singh,
the deceased. In his statement on recall he had also explained
that he had given the address of the house of the deceased
because the place where he lived had no clearly ascertainable
address. Moreover, both he and the deceased came from the         G
same place and t?elonged to the same caste and he knew the
deceased from before. He repeatedly denied that he lived in
the house of the deceased as a tenant and there is no reason
not to accept his statement.
                                                                  H·
      794     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


  A      25. Further, calling Deepa as "Bhabhi" does not at all
    mean that Makhan Singh was a blood relation of Kishan Singh
    Rana. "Bhabhi" is a common fOim of address for the wife of
    someone who is known from before. Moreover, Makhan Singh
    had clearly said that both he and Kishan Singh Rana belonged
  B to Tehri Garhwal and they were also of the same caste and
    further that he knew Kishan Singh Rana from before. In those
    circumstances, to call the wife of the deceased as "Bhabhi"
    was quite natural for him but at the same time it did not, by any
    means, show that he had any blood relationship with the
  c deceased.
         26. Coming now to Ex.Ka-10, it needs to be noted that that
    was an application for leave of absence given where he was
    working. It is a common failing to try to justify the unsanctioned
    absence from work by making out excuses and by taking some
  D liberty with actual facts. Therefore, in his application for
    condoning the absence for four days, if he said that his cousin ·
    had met with a tragic accident, it cannot be inferred that the
    deceased was actually his cousin and in court he was trying to
    conceal the relationship.
-E
           27. We see no reason for the trial court to come to the
      conclusion that PW.2 and PW.3 were speaking falsely and were
      trying to hide the relationship between PW.2 and the deceased
      or that he lived in the house of the deceased as a tenant.
  F      28. In the first place no such inference is possible on the
   basis of the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 and secondly and
   more importantly even if it is assumed for the sake of argument
   that the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 were incorrect in regard
   to the relationship between PW.2 and the deceased and in
 G regard to PW.2 living in the house of the deceased as a tenant
   at the time of occurrence, we fail to see how that can be the
   ground to reject their deposition entirely even though it is
   perfectly sound in respect of the main prosecution case. In our
   system of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is
.H not followed.
  RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL                   795
              [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     29. Here, it is to be stated that the learned counsel A
appearing for the appellant submitted that the deposition of
PW.3 was quite unreliable as it contained certain statements
that were either incorrect or quite inconceivable. He referred
to paragraph 20 of the deposition of PW.3 where she said that
the first fight (between her husband and the appellant) took B
place on the verandah of the shop; that blood also spilled on
the verandah of the shop and further that the first fight on the
verandah of the shop went on for about 10-15 minutes. He also
referred to paragraph 21 of the deposition of PW.3 where she
said that the accused held the scissors with both hands and .     c
opened both the handles of the scissors and then' attacked with
one hand at her husband.

      30. Learned counsel submitted that there was no verandah
in front of the shop of the appellant and the manner of assault
as described by PW.3 was quite inconceivable.                     D

      31. We are unable to accept the submission that on the
basis of the statements pointed out by the counsel the
deposition of PW.3 is liable to be rejected. The statements
relied upon by the counsel were made by PW.3 under the stress     E
of cross-examination. She is a housewife and apparently not
highly educated. She has a limited vocabulary and an imperfect
capacity to describe the manner of assault on her husband. Her
statement especially in paragraph 21 is obviously in answer to
some convoluted question by the cross-examiner, to which she      F
replied as best as she could.

     32. We find the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3 wholly
reliable and see no reason not to accept the same.

    33. Apart from the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3, there are      G
other circumstances that lend credence to the prosecution case.

     34. The Investigating Officer (PW.11) stated that he
arrested the appellant at 8.00 p.m. on July 28, 1988. In course
of interrogation he volunteered to produce the scissors used
                                                                  H
          796     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


      A for killing the deceased from his shop. He took the Investigating
        Officer to his shop, opened it with the keys kept in his pocket
        and recovered the blood stained scissors from under the shop
        counter and produced it before the Investigating Officer.

               35. PW.6 stated that on July 28, 1988, while he was going
      8
          to the house of the deceased, he met the police people in
          Indira colony (the place where the occurrence took place). The
          appellant was also with them. The police people brought the
          appellant to his shop and got it opened and on the asking of
          the Daroga, the appellant picked up a pair of scissors from the
      0   counter of his shop and handed it to the police. A recovery
          memo was prepared and the signatures of the witness and one
          Bhim Singh were taken on the recovery memo.

              36. On a careful consideration of the materials on record
...   D and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the'
        State, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly rejected
        the view taken by the trial court as wholly untenable and has
        rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3 in order to
        bring home the guilt of the appellant.
      E
              37. In the light of the discussion above, we find no merit in
        the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

                38. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he
          is directed to surrender within four weeks from today, failing
      F   which the trial court is directed to take all possible measures
          to apprehend him to make him undergo the remaining
          sentence.

          RP.                                       Appeal Dismissed.