Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1563 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh

2003-11-14

AMAR DUTT

body2003
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The culmination of the investigation, in F.I.R. No. 39 registered on 30.8.1996 in Police Station Khamano under Sections 460/458 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ended in a challan being put in against Jagjit Singh alias Jagga son of Amar Singh alongwith one Raju Bhaiya alias Gobind Sharma for the murders of Sahu, Rabi Singh and Jamila alias Guddo, who could not be apprehended and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial of Jagjit Singh alias Jagga for the murders of Sahu, Rabi Singh and Jamila alias Guddo had, on 31.3.2003, culminated in his conviction for the offences under Sections 460, 458 and 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Section 458 and 460 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and death under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code This has necessitated Murder Reference No. 2 of 2003 for confirmation of the death sentence and the filing of Criminal Appeal No. 369-DB of 2003 by Jagjit Singh alias Jagga to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that Amar Singh son of Ishar Singh, who was jointly cultivating the land with his brother Labh Singh, had installed a tubewell on the western side of the rice factory of Balbir Singh. For the past 7/8 years, Rabi Singh, another son of Ishar Singh; Sahu, a Gujjar; his wife Jeewani and daughter Jamila alias Guddo had been living at the motor. Sahu and his family were keeping their cattle with them and had also employed a servant named Raju Bhaiya alias Gobind Sharma since the last 6/7 months for grazing their cattle. This servant also used to reside at the tubewell. He had taken 5/6 days leave on the pretext that he has to collect money from a person at Ludhiana. A few days before 30.8.1996, Jeewani had gone to visit her daughter Hazaran at Jalandhar. While going to Jalandhar, Jeewani had requested Bashir, another son-in-law of hers, who used to reside at village Khamano to took after her daughter Guddo alias Jamila and because of this, Bashir with his wife and children had visited the house of Sahu on the evening of 29.8.1996. After spending some time, they had come back leaving Billo with Guddo at the house. After spending some time, they had come back leaving Billo with Guddo at the house. Late in the night, Jagga alias Jagjit Singh appellant and Raju Bhaiya are stated to have come to the tubewell. Raju Bhaiya is stated to have brought a hammer and Jagga and caught hold of Sahu from his legs and thrown him on the ground from the cot. Thereafter, Raju Bhaiya had given two hammer blows on the chest of Sahu. Seeing this, Jamila had caught hold of Billo and taken her towards cattle shed. Jagga had then caught hold of Jamila from the back and Raju Bhaiya had given a hammer blow on her shoulder. The result was that Jamila had fallen on the ground. Billo is stated to have started weeping. Raju Bhaiya picked up one wooden peg and hit the same on her head after closing her mouth with his hand. Raju and Jagga took the chunni of Jamila and tied the same around the neck of Billo and after throttling, threw her underneath a Dek tree. Billo, who was aged 7 years old, is stated to have become unconscious. 3. In the morning at about 6, Amar Singh, father of Jagjit Singh alias Jagga is alleged to have come to the tubewell along with tea for his brother Rabi Singh. He found Rabi Singh smeared with blood and lying dead in the motor room with his face downward. Sahu was lying dead on a cot outside the kotha and Jamila alias Guddo daughter of Sahu was lying dead in the Chhan. All of them had hammer injuries on their persons. Billo was lying injured near a Eucalyptus tree near the tubewell and was shrieking. Amar Singh called a Bhaiya from the nearby factory and took Billo to the hospital on a scooter. On the way, she had told him that Raju Bhaiya and a motor cyclist had killed her Nana and Massi after causing injuries with a hammer. He had stopped at the shop of Dr. Sharma, who told him to remove her to the Civil Hospital where she uttered the same words before the doctor and told that she was throttled with a Chunni and injuries were also inflicted on her head. He had stopped at the shop of Dr. Sharma, who told him to remove her to the Civil Hospital where she uttered the same words before the doctor and told that she was throttled with a Chunni and injuries were also inflicted on her head. Since an iron box (Petti) was lying opened and contents thereof scattered in the room, Amar Singh thought that the occurrence had taken place with the intention to commit a theft. He had also found a blood stained hammer lying outside the door of the motor room and after taking Balbir Chand Sarpanch, Raj Singh Panch and Rakha Singh son of Jai Ram, residents of Khamano Kamli. He had gone to the Police Station, Khamano for lodging an F.I.R. which was recorded by S.I. Manjit Singh PW13 on the basis of the statement made by Amar Singh under Sections 458 and 460 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code 4. After the completion of the F.I.R., S.I. Manjit Singh had accompanied Amar Singh and other persons to the spot and prepared inquest reports Exhibits P8, P13 and P18 in relation to the dead bodies of Rabi Singh, Sahu and Jamila respectively. The Investigating Officer had also prepared rough site plan Ex. PW13/A and taken into possession blood stained earth from near the dead bodies through recovery memos Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B and a hammer Ex. PM/1 through memo Ex. PW9/C. Wrist watch was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PW9/D and patila containing Dal was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW9/E and the dead bodies were forwarded to the hospital for post mortem examination, which was conducted by the doctors and the report in relation to Rabi Singh is Ex. P3, Sahu is Ex. P9 and Jamila is Ex. P14. 5. After the medico-legal examination, taking into consideration the condition of Billo, she was removed to Ludhiana and got admitted in Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital. There, S.I. Majit Singh moved an application before Dr. Bhupinder Singh for obtaining his opinion regarding whether Billo is fit to make a statement and the statement of Billo Ex. PW6/A was recorded in the presence of Dr. Bhupinder Singh, her father Bashir Ali and A.S.I. Rajinder Kumar. In her statement, Billo named Jagga as co-accused of Raju Bhaiya. While conducting post mortem examination of Jamila in response to the request Ex. PW6/A was recorded in the presence of Dr. Bhupinder Singh, her father Bashir Ali and A.S.I. Rajinder Kumar. In her statement, Billo named Jagga as co-accused of Raju Bhaiya. While conducting post mortem examination of Jamila in response to the request Ex. P19 made by the police, the doctor gave his opinion that the possibility of rape having been committed on Jamila could not be ruled out. The vaginal swabs taken by the doctor were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined through report Ex. PX that semen had been found thereon. A motor cycle bearing registration No. PAN 9820 was recovered vide memo Ex. PW13/C and Ex. PW13/E is the site plan showing the place of recovery. Ex. PW13/D is the registration certificate of the motor cycle. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in Court against Jagjit Singh alias Jagga and Raju Bhaiya alias Gobind Sharma. Raju Bhaiya mentioned in the statement of Billo was absconding. 6. On going through the papers sent up for trial, the Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session as he found that the offences committed by the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. After examining the record, the trial Court was of the view that a prima facie case under Sections 460, 302 and 458 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and accordingly framed the charges against him. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence. 7. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Charanjit Singh; PW2 Dr. Amarjit Singh; PW3 Dr. Parampreet Kaur Ghuman; PW4 Bashir; PW5 Amar Singh; PW6 Billo; PW7 Dr. Bhupinder Singh; PW8 Darshan Singh Halqa Patwari; PW9 S.I. Surjit Singh; PW10 H.C. Lakhbir Singh; PW11 H.C. Harjinder Singh; PW12 Constable Surinder Singh; PW13 S.I. Manjit Singh, Investigating Officer and PW14 Constable Angrez Singh and tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Ex. PX, Ex. PX/1, Ex. PY and PZ. 8. When called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the protection evidence, the accused denied all the circumstances and asserted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the complaint party in order to extract money from him and his family. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 9. PX, Ex. PX/1, Ex. PY and PZ. 8. When called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the protection evidence, the accused denied all the circumstances and asserted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the complaint party in order to extract money from him and his family. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 9. The trial Court after hearing arguments came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charges framed against him and after hearing the appellant on the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two years under Section 458 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to minor child Billo; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two years under Section 460 Indian Penal Code for committing lurking house trespass by night and causing the death of three persons. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Jagjit Singh alias Jagga was awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code Hence, Murder Reference No. 2 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 669-DB of 2003. 10. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate has argued that the F.I.R. in this case is of little assistance as it is not based on eye witness account. It brings on record what Amar Singh had been told by Billo as the circumstances which led to the killings. It was also submitted that neither the F.I.R. nor the testimony of a child witness throw any light upon the manner in the which the murders of Sahu and Guddo alias Jamila took place and is totally silent about the injuries that were ultimately found on the dead body of Rabi Singh. Though the Dal lying in the kotha has been taken into possession presumably with a view to rule out the possibility of poisoning but this has has not been investigated into. The investigation as a whole, it was submitted, was defective and by implicating Jagga, the police had apparently tried to cover up its lapses for having failed to solve a triple murder. The investigation as a whole, it was submitted, was defective and by implicating Jagga, the police had apparently tried to cover up its lapses for having failed to solve a triple murder. It was also submitted that the testimony of the child witness cannot be accepted as the possibility of the account given by her being tempered by illusions, which a child is likely to suffer when she is woken up in the middle of the night only to be stunned by a ghastly incident, cannot be ruled out. There is also a distinct possibility of her having been tutored and, therefore, the version which has ultimately come forward regarding Jagga having come on the motor cycle and contacted Raju Bhaiya, who was reading a book, their having caught Sahu and attacked him with a hammer, Raju Bhaiya having picked up a wooden peg and hit Billo on the head, her having been throttled by the chunni and given scratches on the face are versions, which have been introduced to give credibility to a statement, which was otherwise devoid of details regarding the manner in which the incident had taken place. It was also urged that taking into consideration the lack of details about the manner in which the incident took place and what had actually impelled the assailants to kill three persons, is a factor, which ought to have been considered by the trial Court for not awarding the death penalty to the appellant. 11. On behalf of the State, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were countered with the argument that the testimony of Billo is such as cannot be ignored. The fact that the father of the appellant is an informant explains the absence of the details regarding his participation in the F.I.R. and the ultimate resiling of the witness during the trial. A combined reading of Billos statement before the doctor as well as the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class makes it clear that the identity of Jagga and his participation in the incident, which led to the killings of Sahu, Jamila and Rabi Singh, cannot be disputed. A combined reading of Billos statement before the doctor as well as the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class makes it clear that the identity of Jagga and his participation in the incident, which led to the killings of Sahu, Jamila and Rabi Singh, cannot be disputed. Furthermore, it was submitted that from the sequence of events, it is clear that the accused have acted in a very cruel and inhuman manner and committed extremely brutal murders and, therefore, it being the case of one of the rarest of the rare cases where death penalty is the only adequate punishment, which can be imposed upon the appellant, the appeal, consequently, should be dismissed and death sentence confirmed. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions canvassed before us and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The investigation, in this case, started on 30.8.1996 on an F.I.R. being registered in Police Station Khamano on the asking of Amar Singh. At that time informant was being accompanied by his brother Labh Singh. The two of them had lost their brother Rabi Singh in the incident in which Sahu and Jamila were also killed and Billo left unconscious. Billo, the sole survivor had probably disclosed to them the names of the persons responsible for the dastardly act but the possibility of the filial instinct overpowering their desire of retribution probably motivated Amar singh and Labh Singh to censor out the name of Jagjit Singh from the list of assailants as he was the son of Amar Singh and Labh Singhs nephew. Having diverted the attention of the investigating agency by indicating that there was only one assailant involved, Amar Singh remained satisfied until the statement of Billo was recorded by Dr. Bhupinder Singh. This statement was attested by Dr. Bhupinder Singh and it incorporates the answers given by her, when admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana under the Neurosurgery department to questions put by her father, which read as under :- "Girls Father - Billo Tumhe Kisne Mara ? Child Billo - Raju Bhaiya Ne Mairi Massi Guddo, Maire Nana Aur Mujhe Mara. Father - Jagga Bhee Sath Tha ? Billo - Nodded yes Later on she named JAGGA. Father - Shera, Kala Bhee Sath Tha ? Child Billo - Raju Bhaiya Ne Mairi Massi Guddo, Maire Nana Aur Mujhe Mara. Father - Jagga Bhee Sath Tha ? Billo - Nodded yes Later on she named JAGGA. Father - Shera, Kala Bhee Sath Tha ? Billo - Negative reply meaning No. Comment - Although child is in semi-conscious state and her response was somewhat delayed but she was oriented. Injury caused to girl is dangerous to life. She also had strangulation marks." 14. After this, another statement of Billo was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib on 6.9.1996. In this statement too, Billo says that Jagga and Raju Bhaiya had inflicted blows with a hammer on the shoulder of her aunt and her grand father. Bhaiya had also scratched her face with his nails. The testimony of this witness is sought to be assailed on the ground that she being five years old was too young to realize the implications of the statement made by her after she re-gained consciousness in Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana, where her father was allowed to ask questions about the incident and in this statement the only name, which she has given on her own accord is that of Raju Bhaiya and the name of Jagga has been put into her mouth through a question put by her father. This argument cannot be accepted as it loses sight of the fact that immediately after she had named Jagga alias Jagjit Singh, another question was put to her as to the presence of Shera and Kala, it was replied in the negative. If she was being manipulated by her father into naming persons against whom he had a grouse, the father could also have been able to get affirmative answer to the last question that he had put to Billo. The argument also ignores the fact that there is on record no evidence to suggest what grievance the parents of the child could have against Raju Bhaiya or Jagjit Singh so as to implicate both these persons in the crime. As already indicated by us, the girl had, in all probability, named Jagjit Singh before his father Amar Singh as the perpetrator of the crime along with Raju Bhaiya and probably on account of the filial love overpowering his desire for retribution Amar Singh had left out the name from the statement made by him before the police. As already indicated by us, the girl had, in all probability, named Jagjit Singh before his father Amar Singh as the perpetrator of the crime along with Raju Bhaiya and probably on account of the filial love overpowering his desire for retribution Amar Singh had left out the name from the statement made by him before the police. The fact that Amar Singhs evidence is motivated can be inferred from the manner, in which he had deposed in Court and stultified himself by resiling from whatever information he had been able to supply in the statement, which had formed the basis of the F.I.R. Not only does the testimony of Amar Singh fail to throw any light on the crime that had been committed on his tubewell but if one reads in between the lines, it is evident that he is trying to hide more and reveal less about the circumstances, in which the deaths had taken place. 15. The absence of a rational explanation to indicate the reasons why Amar Singh had initially stated that he had been told by Billo that Raju Bhaiya and one more person had killed her Nana, Massi and Baba with hammer blows warrants an inference that by naming Raju Bhaiya as the identified assailant and withholding the identity of the person accompanying Raju Bhaiya, Amar Singh has deliberately attempted to put the police on a wrong track and thereby save his own son from being charged of gruesome triple murder. Equally mysterious is the manner in which the first informant i.e. Amar Singh has resiled from the statement made by him before the police, on the basis whereof, the investigation in this case had been initiated apparently with a view to guide the same in such a manner as all tracks pointing to the involvement of Jagjit Singh were adequately covered. In this effort, he was joined by his brother Labh Singh, who was associated in the proceedings of inquest that were conducted so that the episode, in which the family had lost Rabi Singh, did not flare up any further and any leads pointing to the involvement of another member of the family were not picked up by the police. 16. 16. It is in the backdrop of this conscious attempt on the part of the brothers of Rabi Singh to scotch all leads, which would throw light on the circumstances in which the incident, in which Sahu, Jamila and Rabi Singh lost their lives and Billo lived to tell the tale because the persons involved in the killing probably took her to be dead, that we have to assess the credibility of Billo the child witness, who has testified in Court against the accused during the trial. While doing so, we are conscious of the judicial precedents, which require the necessity to closely scrutinising the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities with a view to assess the credibility and trustworthiness of the depositions after ruling out the probability of tutoring. In the present case, the first record in relation to what was told by Billo is available in the F.I.R., which was lodged by Amar Singh and the same lists the involvement of two persons in the incident, the identity of one of whom is fixed as Raju Bhaiya. On 30.8.1996, in Ludhiana the child had answered questions in the presence of Dr. Bhupinder Singh of Neurosurgery Department of Mohan Dai Oswal Hospital. A perusal of the statement, which has been reproduced herein before shows that she had named Raju Bhaiya and nodded regarding the involvement of Jagjit Singh and ruled out the involvement of Shera and Kala. From the present record, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be inferred that against the persons, whose names were thrown up by the family of Billo, had any particular enmity with it nor had the naming of Jagjit Singh, been attributed to nor is there any suggestion in the cross-examination of the witnesses or Billos father that the appellants name had been introduced on account of any ulterior motive by Billo. The fact that three names had been put to the witness, who had negatived the involvement of Kala and Shera shows that her naming Jagjit Singh was not a result of the desire of the family to rope in Jagjit Singh for if three persons were being named by the father i.e., Bashir Ali only to settle his own scores, he would have ensured that his daughter Billo would also have answered in the affirmative regarding involvement of the three. Six days after this, the witness had deposed before the Illaqa Magistrate and thereto she had not added or subtracted any person from the list of the assailants. With regard to the role played by the appellant and his compatriot Raju Bhaiya, the witness has not stated anything more than their having given a blow each to Nana Sahu and Massi Jamila and having tried to throttle her with a chunni and thrown her under a Dek tree. The statement records the version put forth by traumatising the child relating to hoary experience through which she had passed without adding or subtracting anything at the behest of the members of her family. On going through the testimony of Billo, we find that no attempt appears to have been made to add details, which a child witnessing a murder would be too frightened to register. There is, in our opinion, a ring of truth in the testimony, which cannot be lost sight of. 17. Upon examining the medical evidence in the light of the testimony of the child witness, we find that the result of use of a hammer has led to the breaking of the ribs of Jamila and Sahu. The injuries were given on the chest as deposed to by Billo and resulted in the breaking of 2 to 6 ribs on the right side and 3 to 7 ribs on the left side. The accused had given a hammer blow on the shoulder of Jamila, which is corroborated by the witness and the broken ribs. An attempt was made to throttle Billo with a chunni and in the scuffle, her face was scratched. Injuries No. 3, 4 and 6 appear to be the marks left by chunni and the abrasions on the fore-head, cheek and neck are the results of scratches given during the struggle. The testimony of Billo, in view of these circumstances, cannot be brushed aside especially when the witness confines herself only to what she had seen and does not try to depose regarding matters which have taken place after an attempt had been made to throttle her and she had been thrown under a Dek tree. 18. The testimony of Billo, in view of these circumstances, cannot be brushed aside especially when the witness confines herself only to what she had seen and does not try to depose regarding matters which have taken place after an attempt had been made to throttle her and she had been thrown under a Dek tree. 18. As a result of this initial assault, which has been deposed to by Billo, whose statement proves the involvement of Raju Bhaiya and Jagga, three dead bodies were found in the morning of 29.8.1996 by Amar Singh and he found Billo whimpering under the Dek tree. The witness does not take upon herself to depose regarding the result of the attack. She does not depose regarding the manner in which Rabi Singh was killed or how the circumstances in which her Massi Jamila was raped. All this, to our mind, lends assurance to the testimony of the child witness as also indicates that no effort has been made either by her elders or the investigating agency to tutor her nor she brought on the record any extraneous matters to depose regarding any matter, which she had not actually seen. In view of this, the objection regarding the credibility of the witness on account of her failure to explain the incised wounds on the person of Rabi Singh is clearly mis-conceived. With regard to the witnesss deposition in relation to the presence of Raju Bhaiya and Jagjit Singh at the tubewell, there is nothing on the record to impeach the evidence regarding their participation in the initial assault on Sahu, Jamila and Billo. No witness having been produced to explain what happened thereafter till the dead bodies of Sahu, Jamila and Rabi Singh were found in the morning, the only conclusion, which can be arrived at, is that the two of them i.e. Raju Bhaiya and Jagjit Singh, alone were responsible for the three killings. No witness having been produced to explain what happened thereafter till the dead bodies of Sahu, Jamila and Rabi Singh were found in the morning, the only conclusion, which can be arrived at, is that the two of them i.e. Raju Bhaiya and Jagjit Singh, alone were responsible for the three killings. Faced with the evidence implicating them in the assault on Sahu, Jamila and Billo, it became the duty of the accused to explain what all happened once the child witness had lost her consciousness and this failure on their part warrants only one inference that not only, did the two of them in furtherance of their common intention had killed Sahu, subjected Jamila to rape and then killed her as also did not spare Rabi Singh, an elder of the family of Jagjit Singh in order to wipe out al possible witnesses, who could help in fixing their responsibility for the killings. In the circumstances enumerated above, we are of the view that the testimony of Billo, whom, we find, has not been tutored anything beyond what she had witnessed has rightly been relied upon by the trial Court for convicting Jagjit Singh. 19. Having come to the conclusion that the conviction by the trial Court of Jagjit Singh appellant has got to be upheld, we may now proceed to examine the question as to whether the murders committed by Jagjit Singh are such as fall within the category of those rarest of the rare cases so as to warrant the acceptance of the reference to impose the capital punishment on the appellant. 20. On behalf of the appellant, reliance has been placed on judicial precedents, which says that death sentence should be given only to those convicts, who have played a role in the perpetration of the crime and in case the motive is missing and the crime is not committed in a manner which can be termed as motiveless, cruel, inhuman and diabolical, the case would not be one where the death sentence should be imposed. In this case, it is evident that Jagjit Singh went to the tubewell, in pursuance to put into operation a scheme, which had been between Raju Bhaiya and Jagjit Singh. In this case, it is evident that Jagjit Singh went to the tubewell, in pursuance to put into operation a scheme, which had been between Raju Bhaiya and Jagjit Singh. The actual scheme is not discernible from the material brought on the record by the prosecution but evidently on reaching there, the two of them concertedly attacked Sahu and Jamila as also tried to silence the child, who had witnessed this act of theirs. The fact that they did not ensure that Billo was dead does not in any way dilute their intention to leave no witnesses of the crime that was going to be perpetrated by them. They killed Sahu and were not merely satisfied by killing Jamila but were diabolical enough to ravish her before putting her to death. Their intention that no one should be spared is further inferable from the fact that Jagjit Singh did not even desist from killing his own uncle. Their action is cruel and carried out with devilish precision. It is not the result of the circumstances, which developed at the spot. It was meticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out in a manner which was to borrow the expression from the judgment of the Apex Court reported as State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, JT 2003(7) SC 419 was "extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly" and the end result whereof was most cruel and inhuman. The victims were an old man of 70 years, a young girl in her late teens, who was also raped and the uncle of the accused Jagjit Singh with Billo, the child witness having escaped the same fate because she had lost her consciousness or became too stunned and speechless to react. In our opinion, from the circumstances enumerated, a case of is made out for the imposition of the capital punishment. The appeal has to be dismissed and the reference has got to be accepted. Ordered accordingly. 21. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information. Appeal dismissed.