Judgment Prasad, J. 1. This appeal at the behest of the appellants Raj Kumar alias Om Prakash and Ram Prasad is directed against the judgment and the order dated 6th September, 1989 in S.T. No. 205 of 1987 passed by Sri Uma Shankar, then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder they have been convicted under Sections 302, read with 34, 394 and 460, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, read with 34, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count under Sections 394 and 460, IPC. The sentence have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under : Vidyanand Mullick, the deceased, was posted as Junior Engineer, Bihar Electricity Board at Koderma. He lived with his wife Bibha Rani, the informant (PW 9) and his son Amar Nath (PW 10) in the Government Quarter at Koderma. On the fateful night around 11 p.m., the informant and her family members took their dinner and went to sleep at about 1.30 a.m. Some one entered into the courtyard of the quarter and knocked on the door, whereupon Vidyanand Mullick, the informants husband, opened the door. As soon as he opened the door, a criminal dealt a Tangi blow on his head and when he raised alarm of chor-chor, four miscreants over powered and felled him near the door and mercilessly assaulted him with Tangi on his head. The informant got up and intervened to save her husband, but she too was assaulted by the miscreants with Tangi and lathi. The miscreants relieved her of a gold nose ring, a silver chain and a wrist watch on her person. The miscreants looted the articles in the house and they took away the orange colour VIP attache on which there was a sticker of N.K., a white VIP and a big attache,. which contained valuables, on which there was a label of the name of the deceased and a tape recorder. The miscreants decamped with the booty through the back door. On alarm raised by the informant, the neighbours took the informant and her husband to Koderma hospital, which is at a distance of half km. from the place of occurrence, for treatment of their wounds. The husband of the informant who was unconscious succumbed to the wounds in Koderma hospital. PW 12 (Md. On alarm raised by the informant, the neighbours took the informant and her husband to Koderma hospital, which is at a distance of half km. from the place of occurrence, for treatment of their wounds. The husband of the informant who was unconscious succumbed to the wounds in Koderma hospital. PW 12 (Md. Azimuddin Ahmad), the then Junior Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Koderma PS., examined the wounds on the person of the deceased, while he was unconscious and issued injury report and ultimately held inquest over his dead body on 28.3.1987 at 6.20 hours (Exhibit 10). PW 12 recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) of the informant (PW 9) at Koderma hospital on 28.3.1987 at 3 a.m. on which she put her thumb-impression due to the wound on her hand. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case against unknown miscreants came to be instituted, a formal first information report (Exhibit 9) was drawn up and investigation was commenced. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW 11 (Prahlad Pd. Singh), the then officer-in-charge. He visited the hospital around 3 a.m. the same night, ascertained the physical description of the culprits involved in the incident from the informant and proceeded to Giridih Road and on suspicion he arrested the appellants at Maheshpur Chowk, which is at a distance of 12 kms. from the place of occurrence, within Koderma Police Station. There were two fresh wounds on the right hand of appellant Raj Kumar He effected seizure of five biddis tied with read thread and a match box as also Rs. 12.50 from the person of appellant Raj Kumar, under seizure list (Exhibit 4) and on interrogation both the appellants took him to the scene of occurrence, they demonstrated the method of the courtyard, showed the place of occurrence (sic) and line of retreat and they took him at some distance to a field in Barsotia Mouza, which is east of a river and at a distance of about 1 km. from the place of occurrence and they pointed out an orange colour VIP attache with stickers N.&K. pasted on it which contained some valuables and an empty old attache of Rinco make, and a cream colour old empty attache which were identified by the son (PW 10) of the informant as belonging to his family and were seized by the I.O. (vide Exhibit 4/1) in presence of PW 3 Bulaki Ram and PW 6 Abbas Khan. The I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and found extensive blood stains on the spot. He effected seizure of articles including two biddi ends tied with read thread, vide seizure list (Exhibit 4/2). The case was, ultimately, committed to the Court of Session by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma on 10.7.1987. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. They are: PW 1 (Mahboob Alam), PW. 2 (Prakash Yadav), PW 3 (Bulaki Ram), a witness to the seizure of three attaches and other articles seized from the place of occurrence, PW 4 (Navin Kumar Sinha), who claimed the recovered VIP brief case, on which the stickers N.&S. were pasted, PW 7 another witness on the seizure of the three briefcases/attaches and the seizure of articles from the place of occurrence, PW 8 (Vijoy Kumar) and witness to the seizure of blood-stained stick and other articles from the place, of occurrence, PW 9 (Bibha Rani), the informant PW 10 (Amar Nath), son of the informant and the deceased, PW 11 (Prahlad Pd. Singh), the I.O. and PW 12 (Md. Azimuddin), who had recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit 3) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, PW 5 (Dr. Imran Ahmad Khan), who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, and PW 7 (Dr. Rama Nand Sharma), who examined wounds on the persons of the informant and appellant Raj Kumar. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. The further defence is the denial that the appellants have pointed out the brief cases/attaches which had been seized by the police officer. 4. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 5. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. The further defence is the denial that the appellants have pointed out the brief cases/attaches which had been seized by the police officer. 4. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness. 5. On consideration of the materials on record and mainly relying on the evidence of the informant (PW 9) and their identification in Court by her as well as the evidence of PW 11, and the circumstance that the stolen brief cases/attaches were recovered on the pointing by the appellants, the factor of the presence of wounds on the person of the appellant (Raj Kumar) and the recovery of five biddies tied with read thread from his possession read in the context that two burnt biddi ends tied with read thread had been seized from the place of occurrence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were involved in the incident and accordingly convicted and sentenced them under Sections 302/34, 394 and 460, IPC in the manner indicated above. 6. Mr. Prem Shankar Dayal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the appellants were not put on test identification parade and their identification by the informant (PW 9) in Court after a lapse of about two years is of no value in the eye of law, that she had not attributed specific overt act against them in her evidence; that there is no mention in the seizure list (Exhibit 4/1) that the brief cases/attaches have been recovered on the pointing by the appellants that the allegedly recovered brief cases/attaches were also not put on test identification parade nor produced in Court for identification by PWs 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 and it is doubtful in the circumstance that these are stolen properties, that the prosecution has not explained that the appellant (Raj Kumar) had suffered wounds in the incident and the presence of wounds on his person cannot be used as circumstance against him and; that the circumstance that the five biddies tied with read thread were found in his possession, which are available in open market, is in sufficient to lead to the inference that he had participated in the occurrence simply because two burnt biddi ends tied with read thread had been seized from the scene of occurrence. 7. Mr. Rajgarhia, learned APP, for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment. 8. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Sections 302/34, 394 and 460, IPC to the accused appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. 9. At the first instance it has to be considered whether the death of the deceased (Vidyanand Mullick) was homicidal. PW 9 (Bibha Rani), the informant has testified to the effect that on the fateful night, the deceased was mercilessly assaulted by the culprits with Tangi and lathi. PW 10 (Amar Nath), son of the deceased, has stated that when on hulla he woke up, he found his parents wounded. PW 6 (Abbas Khan), a neighbour, has deposed that when he went to the house of the deceased he found that the deceased had wounds and was unconscious. PW 12 (Md. Azimuddin Ahmad), a police officer, has stated that when he visited the hospital on the night of the occurrence around 3 a.m. he found that the deceased was unconscious with severe wounds and next morning he held inquest over the dead body. PW 5 (Dr. Imran Ahmad Khan) has testified to the effect that on 28.3.1987 while he was Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sub-divisional Hospital, Koderma, he performed post-mortem examination on, the dead body of Vidyanand Mullick, the deceased and he found a bleeding cut wound on the lateral end of right eye 2" x 1/2" x 1/2", a bleeding cut wound on forehead 1" x 1/2" x 1/2", seven incised wounds on head, which are dealt in his evidence, two abrasions, one on right forearm and the other on right leg, which were ante mortem wounds. He has further stated that on dissection he found that the skull bone was cut, there was multiple fracture of skull parietal and occipital, brain material was lacerated and there was huge collection of blood under scalp and skull. According to him, the death was due to brain injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and profuse hjaemorrhage resulting in shock, respiratory and cardiac failure. He has further opined that the time elapsed since the death was about eight hours of the post-mortem examination. Exhibit 2 is the post-mortem report of the deceased. He has not stated in his evidence regarding the commencement of the post-mortem examination of the deceased. He has further opined that the time elapsed since the death was about eight hours of the post-mortem examination. Exhibit 2 is the post-mortem report of the deceased. He has not stated in his evidence regarding the commencement of the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The post-mortem report shows that the post-mortem examination had commenced on 28.3.1987 at 10.20 a.m. The ocular testimonies and the medicdal evidence establish beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The factum of murder of the deceased was not challenged by the defence. Hence, on the basis of materials on record it is held that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 10. The identity of the place of occurrence is not in dispute in the instance case. PW 9 (Bibha Rani) has stated that the miscreants trespassed into her house, mercilessly assaulted her and her deceased husband, and relieved her of a gold nose ring, wrist watch, silver necklace on her person, they robbed the deceased husband of his wrist watch and took away two VIP brief cases and an attache. PW 10 (Amar Nath), the other inmate of the house, has stated that PW 9, his mother, had narrated about the incident of assault and robbery soon after the occurrence. The factum of robbery is not disputed in the instant case. The I.O. (PW 11) had found the articles of a room of the quarter in occupation of the deceased scattered. He had also found extensive blood marks on the sport and blood stains on box, almirah and floor as also other articles on the scene of occurrence. He had effected the seizure of broken lock and blood stained articles from the scene of occurrence under seizure list (Exhibit 4/2). PWs 3, 6 and 8 have testified to the seizure of the said articles. The I.O. in his sketch map (Exhibit 6) and its index (Exhibit 7) has given the graphic description of the scene of occurrence. The overwhelming and impeachable evidence shows that the occurrence took place in the quarter of the deceased. 11. The crucial point which now arises for consideration is whether the appellants participated in the occurrence culminating in the murder of the deceased. 12. The overwhelming and impeachable evidence shows that the occurrence took place in the quarter of the deceased. 11. The crucial point which now arises for consideration is whether the appellants participated in the occurrence culminating in the murder of the deceased. 12. PW 9 (Bibha Rani) has stated in her chief-examination that on the night in between 27.3.1987/28.3.1987 she was sleeping with her husband in a room, while her son (Amar Nath) was sleeping in the adjoining room and around 1.30 a.m. some one knocked on the outer door, whereupon her husband opened the door and thereafter, one micreants struck him with Tangi on head and he fell down and raised alarm. She has further stated that the culprits were four in number and they threw down her husband and mercilessly assaulted him. with Tangi and lathi and while assaulting they uttered to kill him. She has further stated that she too was assaulted by the miscreants with Tangi and lathi. She has, as indicated above, stated about the robbery committed by the miscreants. She has also deposed that the people of the locality had carried her and her husband to the hospital, where she was treated for the wounds and she gave her fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) before the police officer (PW 11). It was read over to her and finding it correct, she appended her thumb-impression because of wound on her hand. PW 7 (Dr. Rama Nand Sharma) has stated that on 28.3.1987 he had examined her and found as many as 10 incised wounds, one incised wound was on the root of nose with fracture of nasal bone, there was incised cut wound on the dorsum of the right arm and the other eight wounds were on the forehead or head. The wounds found on the person of Bibha Rani were caused by sharp cutting weapon and three of the wounds were grievous in nature and the rest were simple wounds. He has described the dimension of the vounds in his evidence. Exhibit 3 is the injury report in his pen. He has stated that the wounds were aged within one hour of the examination, but he has missed to say the time of her examination in his evidence. He has described the dimension of the vounds in his evidence. Exhibit 3 is the injury report in his pen. He has stated that the wounds were aged within one hour of the examination, but he has missed to say the time of her examination in his evidence. The injury report (Exhibit 3) shows that she was examined on 28.3.1987 at 2.10 a.m. This fits in with the prosecution case regarding the time of occurrence and that she too was brutally assaulted by the miscreants. The injuries sustained by her could not be self inflicted. She is an injured witness and her presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. The fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) corroborates her testimony in material particulars about the occurrence. 13. PW 9 (Bibha Rani) identified the appellants in Court among the miscreants who had taken part in the occurrence. It is true that earlier she had not participated in the test identification parade for identifying the appellants among the culprits involved in the incident. She has explained in her evidence that she could not attend the test identification parade due to illness. She has fairly admitted in her cross-examination that the appellants were not known to her from before. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that for want of earlier identification in the test identification parade, the solitary testimony of PW (Bibha Rani) on the identification of the appellants in Court among the miscreants involved in the occurrence cannot be relied upon. It may be mentioned here that PW 9 has claimed to have identified the appellants on the spot in the burning light. The investigating officer (PW 11) has stated that when on the next day he had visited the spot he had found electric bulb of 100 Watts burning in the angan (courtyard) of the quarter of the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve that there was burning light in the house/quarter at the time of the occurrence. That apart, in her fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) she claimed to have identify the culprits by looking at them. There is no reason to disbelieve that there was burning light in the house/quarter at the time of the occurrence. That apart, in her fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) she claimed to have identify the culprits by looking at them. The number of injuries sustained by her and her husband unmistakably suggests that the occurrence had lasted for quite sometime and she had opportunity to see the miscreants from close range It has come in her evidence that on the next day at about noon she and her family members were sent to Patna and at that time the appellants had been brought before her by the police. Thus, she had the occasion to see the appellants for the second time. It is not the case where she had the occasion to see the appellants only once and that too for a fraction of seconds and it does not stand to reason why PW 9 who was herself a victim of assault and close relative of the deceased would falsely implicate the appellants and spare the real culprits. It is well settled that identification of an accused in Court is the substantive evidence of the person identifying and his earlier identification in a test identification parade corroborates the same. In other words, want of evidence of earlier identification in test identification parade does not affect the admissibility of evidence of identification in Court. The failure to hold the test identification parade is not necessarily fatal. The absence of corroborative evidence of prior identification in a test identification parade may render the substantive evidence of identification in Court after a long lapse of time a weak piece of evidence and no reliance can be placed upon it unless sufficiently and satisfactorily corroborated by other evidence BBCJ 1988 (SC) 174, Jeorge and others v. State of Kerala and others. One may, therefore, proceed to ascertain whether the other evidence adduce by the prosecution lends assurance to the evidence of PW 9 regarding her identification of the appellants- as the participants in the occurrence. 15. One may, therefore, proceed to ascertain whether the other evidence adduce by the prosecution lends assurance to the evidence of PW 9 regarding her identification of the appellants- as the participants in the occurrence. 15. PW 11 has testified to the effect that on 28.3.1987, around 3 a.m. he visited Koderma Hospital where the informant disclosed to him about the physical description of the miscreants and thereafter, he proceeded to Giridih road for nabbing the suspects and on suspicion he arrested the appellant Raj Kumar, who had two fresh wounds on right hand, at Mahespur Chowk at about 5.30 a.m. and that at the same place he checked trekker No. BPH 3664 and arrested appellant Ram Prasad therefrom on suspicion, who talked Rajasthani and on search five biddies tied with red thread, a match box and Rs. 12.50 paise in cash was seized from the possession of the appellant Raj Kumar under Exhibit 4. PW 1 (Mahboob Alam), the driver and PW 2, the Khalasi of the trekker, have stated that a passenger had been arrested by the police officer from the trekker. But they did not identify the appellant Ram Prasad in Court. PW 1 has admitted his signature on the seizure list (Exhibit 4), but he has denied that any recovery was made in his presence. The testimony of PW 11 on the apprehension of the appellants at Mahespur Chowk and seizure of articles under Exhibit 4 from the possession of the appellant Raj Kumar has not been challenged by the defence during cross-examination. PW 11 has further stated that he got the wounds on the person of the appellant Raj Kumar examined by Dr. R.N. Sharma at Koderma Hospital. PW 7 (Dr. Rama Nand Sharma) has stated that on 28.3.1987 at 7.30 a.m. he had examined appellant Raj Kumar and he had found two simple incised cut wounds on his right palm caused by sharp cutting weapon, which were aged about 7 hours of the examination. Exhibit 3/1 is the injury report in the pen of PW 7 (Dr. R.N. Sharma). The testimony of PW 7 corroborates the evidence of PW 11 that there were fresh wounds on the hand of the appellant Raj Kumar. The medical evidence shows that the wounds were suffered by the appellant Raj Kumar in the night of 28.3.1987. Exhibit 3/1 is the injury report in the pen of PW 7 (Dr. R.N. Sharma). The testimony of PW 7 corroborates the evidence of PW 11 that there were fresh wounds on the hand of the appellant Raj Kumar. The medical evidence shows that the wounds were suffered by the appellant Raj Kumar in the night of 28.3.1987. The defence has not explained the wounds found on the person of the appellant Raj Kumar. There is probability that he might have sustained the wounds in the incident. The fact that the five biddies tied with red string were seized from the possession of the appellant Raj Kumar may not be treated to be a strong circumstances against him simply because two burnt biddi ends tied with string were found on the spot. The reason is that the biddies are available in open market. 16. PW 11 has testified to the effect that on interrogation both the appellants led him to the scene of occurrence and they showed the method of entering the Angan (court-yard) of the quarter of the deceased, the place of assault, a broken window panestained with blood and the line of retreat. PW 6 (Abbas Khan) has corroborated the testimony of PW 11 that the appellants had taken the police officer to the quarter of Vidyanand Mullick and had demonstrated their entry into the house/quarter. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs 6 and 11 on the point. The conduct of the appellants in leading the police officer to the place of occurrence, demonstrating the method of entry into the Angan of the Quarter and the line of retreat is a relevant fact and is a strong circumstance to suggest that they were involved in the incident. It is pertinent to note that the appellants claimed to be the residents of Rajasthan. But, they have given no explanation for their presence at Koderma on 28.3.1987. That apart, there is circumstance that on verification the name and address given by the appellants was found to be false (vide Exhibit 11). 17. PW 11 (Prahlad Pd. Singh) has deposed that the appellants took him to a field which was about 100 yards to East of a river and they pointed out three briefcases/attaches under the bridge which were seized by him in presence of PWs 3 and 6 on 28.3.1987. 17. PW 11 (Prahlad Pd. Singh) has deposed that the appellants took him to a field which was about 100 yards to East of a river and they pointed out three briefcases/attaches under the bridge which were seized by him in presence of PWs 3 and 6 on 28.3.1987. The time of seizure recorded in the seizure list is 10 hours. He identified the seized briefcases/attaches in Court which are marked Exhibits I, II and III. There is observation of the trial Court that the name of Navin Kumar Sinha was written on the plate and the stickers of N & K respectively were pasted on one of the VIP briefcases on either side of the lock, and it was of red (orange) colour. A comment has been made that in the fardbeyan as well as in the seizure list (Exhibit 4/1) the colour of the VIP/attache has been described as orange. It is suffice to say that the colour has different shades. PW 11 has further stated that there were some clothes in the red colour briefcase/attache, which were seized by him and the other two seized briefcases/attaches were empty. 18. PW 3 (Bulaki Ram) has simply stated that three briefcases were seized from a field on the day of occurrence. PW 6 (Abbas Khan) has deposed that the appellants led the police officer to a field at Mouza Barsotia and handed over three briefcases to him on the next morning of the occurrence which were seized by him. He has identified the appellants in Court. It has come in the evidence of PWs 6 and 11 that the distance between the place of occurrence and the place of recovery of the briefcases/attaches is about a kilometre PW 10 has stated that on the next day the police officer had taken the appellants (whom he identified in Court) to a field and he had accompanied them, and the appellants took out and handed over three briefcases/attaches to the police officer, two of which were VIPs and one of the briefcases/attaches belonged to Navin Kumar Sinha, which had been lent by Navin Kumar Sinha (PW 4) to his father and the other two briefcases belonged to him. He has further claimed to have identified the seized briefcases on the spot. He has further claimed to have identified the seized briefcases on the spot. PW 11 has corroborated the testimony of PW 10 that he had identified the recovered seized briefcases/attaches at the place of recovery. 19. PW 4 (Navin Kumar Sinha) has testified to the effect that Vidyanand Mullick, the deceased was his cousin maternal uncle, and he had lent his VIP briefcases about three weeks prior to the occurrence, and on the two ends of the brief case N&S stickers were pasted and near its handle his name in plastic stickers were pasted and this brief case had been looted away by the dacoits which was subsequently recovered. In the fardbeyan (Exhibit 8) it is specifically mentioned that a VIP attache (orange colour) on which the stickers N & S were pasted had been looted away by the miscreants. 20. It is true that the seized briefcases/attaches were not put on Test Identification Parade. It is equally true that the seized briefcases/attaches were not produced before PWs 4, 9 and 10 for identification in Court. But the fact remains that there is reliable evidence that PW 10 had identified the seized briefcases/attaches to be stolen property, belonging to PW 4 and family of the informant. The seized briefcases/attaches have been identified by the police officer (PW 11). There is distinctive mark of identification on one VIP brief case belonging to PW 4. It would have been proper to produce the seized briefcases/attaches for identification by PWs 4, 9 and 10 in Court. But, the omission to do so in the circumstances of the case does not amount to any infirmity in the prosecution case. The defence is of bald denial. The appellants do not claim the recovered briefcases/attaches. There is reliable evidence of PWs 6, 10 and 11 that the briefcases/attaches had been recovered on the pointing of the appellants. At that time, both the appellants were in the custody of police at the place of recovery. There is nothing to suggest that they have any animus with the appellants. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. There is reliable evidence of PWs 6, 10 and 11 that the briefcases/attaches had been recovered on the pointing of the appellants. At that time, both the appellants were in the custody of police at the place of recovery. There is nothing to suggest that they have any animus with the appellants. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. A criticism has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the seizure list (Exhibit 4/1) it is not recorded that the recovery was made on the disclosure by the appellants and this renders the theory that the recovery was made on the disclosure made by the appellants as improbable. It has been held above that there is reliable prosecution evidence that the recovery was effected on the pointing out by the appellants. Hence, the non-recording of the disclosure statement in the seizure list is of no consequence. The seizure of the stolen briefcases/attaches in consequence of pointing out by the appellants was effected within 9 hours of the occurrence. The appellants have furnished no explanation as to how they had knowledge about the presence of the seized articles concealed at the place of recovery. In other words, they have offered no explanation as to how they came by the possession of the stolen properties. In the facts of the case, it is evident that the murder and robbery formed integral parts of the same transaction and the recovery of the stolen properties (briefcases/attaches and clothes) at the instance of the appellants within 9 hours of the occurrence would lead to the presumption under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the appellants not only committed the murder of the deceased, but also committed robbery of the movables. The recovery of the stolen properties on the pointing out by the appellants lends assurance to the testimony of PW 9 (the informant) that they had taken part in the occurrence. 21. In view of the discussions made above, I find and hold that the prosecution has substantiated the charge under Sections 302/34, 394 and 460, IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellants are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. They are directed to surrender to their bail bond forthwith in the Court below to serve out the remaining part of the sentence, failing which the Court below shall take all steps to secure their attendance. R.A.Sharma, J. 23 I agree.