Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 451 (ALL)

Bhupendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2003-02-28

K.N.OJHA, M.C.JAIN

body2003
M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THERE are three appellants, namely, Bhupendra. Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar. The appeal challenges the judgement and order dated 10-12-1996 passed by Sri K. K. Tyagi, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S. T. 369 of 1994. All of them have been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. In default of payment of fine, each of them has to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one year, 2/3rd of the fine, if realised, has been ordered to be paid to the widow of the deceased Surendra Singh. The appellants Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar are real brothers being sons of Tarif Singh whereas appellant Bhupendra is their cousin brother. Two persons, namely, Vijai Pal Singh and Surendra were murdered in the incident. Two others, namely, Tarif Singh and Prem Singh were also tried for the said offence under Section 120-B, I. P. C. , but they were acquitted. ( 2 ) THE brief resume of the prosecution case is necessary to appreciate the discussion that has to follow. Tarif Singhs son had earlier been murdered in which Asendra son of Vijai Pal Singh deceased and Praveen son of Kamal Singh were accused. They were in jail and two deceased Vijai Pal Singh and Surendra were doing pairvi to get them released on bail. This was the background of the present incident. This incident took place on 20-10-1993 at about 6. 45 a. m. in village Saidpura, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr and the report of the incident was lodged the same day at 10. 45 a. m. by Chandra Pal Singh P. W. 1 (eye-witnesses ). The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was about five kilometers. On the fateful day and time, the informant, his cousin brother Vijai Pal Singh and Balbir Singh were going from village to Bulandshahr in connection with a case of consolidation proceedings. At about 6. 45 a. m. , they reached on the pavement (Kharanja) near the field of Ranjeet Singh. The appellants Devendra Singh armed with country-made pistol, Ajai Kumar armed with country-made pistol and Bhupendra armed with Gadasa along with one another armed with country-made pistol came out of the grove of Sukhbir and pounced upon Vijai Pal Singh. At about 6. 45 a. m. , they reached on the pavement (Kharanja) near the field of Ranjeet Singh. The appellants Devendra Singh armed with country-made pistol, Ajai Kumar armed with country-made pistol and Bhupendra armed with Gadasa along with one another armed with country-made pistol came out of the grove of Sukhbir and pounced upon Vijai Pal Singh. The three armed with country-made pistols opened a volley of shots and as soon as Vijai Pal Singh fell down, Bhupendra struck a number of Gadasa blows on him. They also ran to nab Chandra Pal Singh P. W. 1 and Balbir Singh P. W. 3 who took to their heels towards the village to save themselves. ( 3 ) SURENDRA (real brother of Chandra Pal Singh P. W. 1) was standing near his house. The appellants came chasing. As Vijai Pal and Balbir Singh had taken shelter in Gher of Prem Singh son of Ram Chandra by the side of the house of Deshraj, the appellants rushed up for the blood of Surendra. To save his life, Surendra ran up and scaling the wall reached the house of Gajendra Singh. He wanted to shut the door but was reached by the appellants who dragged him out and opened shots on him in the Gher of Gajendra Singh, Surendra died. The incident was witnessed by Vimla P. W. 2 (wife of Surendra), Vijai Pals daughter Kavita, Chandrawati, etc. It was in this way that the murder of two persons, namely, Vijai Pal Singh and Surendra was committed in which Prem Singh and Tarif Singh were said to be in criminal conspiracy. Chandra Pal Singh reached the police station with the F. I. R. after getting it scribed by Godha Rams nephew. Earlier to his reaching the police station, one Kale had passed on skeleton information by telephone and police had left for the spot. The investigation was taken up by S. O. Naresh Chandra Varma. Panchayatnamas, etc. had been prepared by Ramesh Chandra Sharma S. S. I. P. W. 9. ( 4 ) THE post mortem over the dead body of the deceased Surendra was conducted by Dr. A. K. Bansal P. W. 4 on 20-10-1993 at 5. 15 P. M. and the same Doctor had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Vijai Pal Singh on 20-10-1993 at 5. ( 4 ) THE post mortem over the dead body of the deceased Surendra was conducted by Dr. A. K. Bansal P. W. 4 on 20-10-1993 at 5. 15 P. M. and the same Doctor had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Vijai Pal Singh on 20-10-1993 at 5. 40 P. M. The deceased Surendra was aged about 32 years and about half day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person : 1. Firearm wound of Entry 4. 5 cm. x 4. 5 cm. on the upper part back of chest in inter scapular region with blackening tattooing around wound. 2. Firearm wound of Entry 2. 5 cm. x 3 cm. brain cavity deep on postero-superior part of head in midline, with three laceration of skin from wound measuring 5 cm. 6 cm. and 6 cm. long. Blackening and tattooing present. Direction of wound back to front with Right tilt. Multiple fracture in spindess and laminae of vertebrae at T2-3, and T4 level with damage to spinal cord at same level. Three wad pieces recovered from the wound on the fracture vertebrae, nose soft tissue damage in Right paravertibral muscles and perforation of Right chest cavity also from where 10 pellets recovered. No. 2, multiple fracture in vault of skull with shattered bones frontal parietal, temporal. Crania fossae with multiple fracture as noted with laceration of main region and gross distraction. ( 5 ) THE death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. ( 6 ) VIJAI Pal Singh was aged about 52 years and half day has passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person : 1. Firearm wound of entry 2 cm. x 2 cm. x brain cavity deep on the forehead just above outer part of left eyebrow. Blackening and tattooing present around, large hole in frontal bone under the injury. 2. Firearm wound of exit 1. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. on the back of head with irregular laceration and everted wound margins, most of the bones of postero superior and past part of skull vault missing, remaining vault fractured and collapsed. Most of the brain matter missing from cerebram Direction-front to back with right tilt. (1)- (2) through and through. 3. Incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. 5 cm. on the back of head with irregular laceration and everted wound margins, most of the bones of postero superior and past part of skull vault missing, remaining vault fractured and collapsed. Most of the brain matter missing from cerebram Direction-front to back with right tilt. (1)- (2) through and through. 3. Incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep on outer lateral part of left knee with cut piece of upper and tibia present on wound. 4. Incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep on left side head. Involving left Pinna-cut pinna along with flap of scalp. 5. Incised wound 5 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the top of left shoulder in AP direction. 6. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the back of right Scapula. 7. Incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on right Scapula. Spine of Scapula cut in line of wound. 8. Incised wound 3 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x bone deep on the back of left forearm 5 cm. above wrist ulna cut in line of wound. 9. Incised wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x muscle deep on outer aspect of left Pelvis. ( 7 ) ON internal examination, multiple fractures were found in the vault of skeleton, frontal, parietal and occipital bones. Membranes were grossly lacerated. Stomach had about 150-ml. semi-solid semi-digested food. The death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. ( 8 ) THE defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity. ( 9 ) THE prosecution,in all, examined 9 witnesses. Out of them the eye-witnesses were Chandra Pal P. W. 1, Smt. Vimla P. W. 2 and Balbir Singh P. W. 3. As the trial resulted in conviction of three appellants with sentences passed against them as stated in the earlier part of the judgment, they are in appeal before this Court. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri Amar Saran learned counsel for the appellants, learned A. G. A. and Sri R. B. Sharma learned counsel for the complainant. The record of the case has been summoned which we have carefully perused. We intend to deal below with the arguments advanced at the bar relating to the important aspects of the matter. The record of the case has been summoned which we have carefully perused. We intend to deal below with the arguments advanced at the bar relating to the important aspects of the matter. ( 11 ) IT has first been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that murders of Vijai Pal and Surendra were separated by time and place and therefore, there must have been two separate trials. According to him there has been breach of Section 218, of Cr. P. C. and a single trial for the two murders is vitiated, entitling the appellants to be acquitted. To support his argument he referred to the statement of Chandra Pal (informant) P. W. 1 that after the first shot on Vijai Pal, he and Balbir Singh had started running to the village in the eastern side and had run for about one kilometre. It has been reasoned that it must have naturally taken some time before he and Balbir could reach the village being followed by the appellants for the murder of Surendra in the manner alleged by them. We are of the opinion that this hyper-technical argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has no merit at all. The distance for which Chandra Pal had claimed to run towards the village with Balbir has been spoken by him as a rough estimate of a rustic villager which is not to be taken based on mathematical accuracy. The entire incident covering the two murders of Vijai Pal and Surendra was the part of one and same transaction. The two murders were committed in quick succession by the three appellants. After murdering Vijai Pal, they ran after witnesses Chandra Pal and Balbir Singh towards the village. As they managed to escape, they outpoured their anger on another member of their family, namely, Surendra who was readily found by them near his house. With blood in their eyes and armed with deadly weapons, they chased him and dragged him out of the house of Gajendra Singh wherein he attempted to take shelter and shot him dead in the Gher of Gajendra Singh. To say that the two incidents were different would be too artificial. The appellants were charged for both the murders and the prosecution led evidence relating to every relevant detail with regard thereto. As passing reference, we should also say that Section 464 of Cr. To say that the two incidents were different would be too artificial. The appellants were charged for both the murders and the prosecution led evidence relating to every relevant detail with regard thereto. As passing reference, we should also say that Section 464 of Cr. P. C. is a complete answer to the untenable argument raised from the side of the appellants. It provides that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed, or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The present case stands on a much better footing where there has been no such error, omission or irregularity in relation to the charge. For the discussion made here-inabove we reject the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We would do well to observe here that the F. I. R. of the incident was a prompt one having been lodged by the eye-witness Chandra Pal Singh P. W. I and further that there was motive on the part of the appellants, who wanted to avenge the murder of Tarif Singhs son in which the nephew of Chandra Pal P. W. 1 and Praveen were accused. It is obvious that there was deep-seated acrimony between the two sides. It would be noted that Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar are the sons of Tarif Singh and Bhupendra Singh is their cousin brother. ( 12 ) IT has next been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the post mortem report of Vijai Pal Singh, he had suffered only one firearm wound of entry whereas Chandra Pal P. W. 1 stated that Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar and their unknown companion had roasted Vijai Pal with shots. Suffice it to say in this regard that the statement of witness has to be read as a whole and not in a pedantic manner to find fault with it. The statement of this witness is also to this effect that in the beginning one shot had been fired on Vijai Pal and thereafter the sound of two shots had been heard. The statement of this witness is also to this effect that in the beginning one shot had been fired on Vijai Pal and thereafter the sound of two shots had been heard. Thus, this witness meant to say so that a number of shots had been fired on Vijai Pal. There is nothing unusual that one had hit him whereafter on being downed a number of Gadasa blows had been inflicted at him by Bhupendra appellant. The learned counsel for the appellants also criticized the testimony of Chandra Pal P. W. 1 that there was gap of four minutes between first shot fired on Vijai Pal and the remaining two shots. It has been pointed out that Balbir Singh P. W. 3, on the other hand, stated that all the three shots had been fired after a gap of half a second each. Suffice it to say in this regard that estimation of time gap has been given by these witnesses as per their perception which differs from man to man. The appellants cannot gain any point by complaining of insignificant and unnatural variances in the time estimation given by these two witnesses. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants then argued that Chandra Pal P. W. 1 stated that first shot had been fired on Vijai Pal from a distance of less than one foot whereas according to Balbir Singh P. W. 3 the shots had been fired on Vijai Pal from a distance of 1/2 pace. Learned counsel for the appellants also urged that there was conflict in ocular testimony and medical evidence so far as Vijai Pal is concerned. It must have been fired from point blank range because it was so powerful that there was large hole in the frontal bone under the injury and even part of the skull vault was missing. Most of brain matter was also missing. Remaining vault of skull was fractured and collapsed. He also reasoned that it must have been a blast injury. We are not prepared to accept the reasoning suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to observe that the blast injury does not cause an entry wound. In the case at hand, Vijai Pal had sustained firearm wound of entry with corresponding wound of exit which was quite large. Dr. We are not prepared to accept the reasoning suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to observe that the blast injury does not cause an entry wound. In the case at hand, Vijai Pal had sustained firearm wound of entry with corresponding wound of exit which was quite large. Dr. A. K. Bansal P. W. 4 stated in his cross-examination that it could be an injury caused by bullet and must have been fired from a distance of one foot. So, when we examine the statements of eye-witnesses Chandra Pal P. W. 1 and Balbir Singh P. W. 3 with reference to the post mortem report of Vijai Pal and the statement of Doctor conducting autopsy over his dead body, we do not find any conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. It is wholly imaginary to suggest that the firearm injuries i. e. injury Nos. 1 and 2 sustained by Vijai Pal were blast injuries. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then criticized the testimony of Chandra Pal Singh P. W. 1 and Balbir Singh P. W. 3 that they could not be the eye-witnesses at all and they have spoken out of their imagination. This argument was attempted to be backed by this reasoning that Chandra Pal P. W. 1 admitted that he had purchased a house in Awas Vikas Colony Bulandshahr on instalments in the name of his wife Krishna Devi in 1988 and that he had a saw machine at Bulandshahr. He sugested that he was actually living at Bulandshahr and was subsequently called from there to lodge the F. I. R. and to pose to be an eye-witness. Another reasoning given in support of the argument is that he as well as Balbir Singh P. W. 3 stated that they were going with Vijai Pal in connection of some case of consolidation, but no paper relating to any case was found in the belongings of Vijay Pal. We should point out that Chandra Pal P. W. 1 clearly stated that he was in the village as he, Vijai Pal Singh and Balbir Singh had to go to S. O. C. in connection with consolidation case. They had already arrived at a compromise regarding the chaks and this was the purpose of their going together to Bulandshahr on the fateful day. They had already arrived at a compromise regarding the chaks and this was the purpose of their going together to Bulandshahr on the fateful day. There was valid reason for his being in the village in connection with deliberations for arriving at a compromise concerning consolidation matter and then going to S. O. C. together with Balbir and Vijay Pal for the compromise. Same was the reason of Balbir Singh accompanying Vijay Pal deceased and Chandra Pal P. W. 1. There is nothing unusual or suspicious if the three were going together from the village to Bulandshahr in connection with compromise in consolidation matter. The fact that no paper relating to consolidation litigation/compromise was found in the belongings of Vijay Pal cannot and does not bely the testimony of these two eye-witnesses that the three were going to Bulandshahr for the purpose. The papers could be with the lawyer at Bulandshahr who was to assist them in recording compromise before the competent authority as per the legal requirements. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then referred to the postmortem reports of the two deceased, namely, Vijay Pal Singh and Surendra that rigour mortis was found present all over in the dead body of each of them. The postmortem over the dead body of Surendra was conducted on 20-10-1993 at 5. 15 p. m. and that of Vijai Pal was done at 5. 40 p. m. on 20-10-1993 by the same Doctor. The Doctor estimated the probable time of death as half day. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the cross-examination of Dr. A. K. Bansal P. W. 4 that there could be a variation in the time of death of about 6-7 hours to the back side. Thus, it has been emphasized that the two murders might have taken place under the cover of darkness much before the time alleged by the prosecution and the accused appellants came to be nominated falsely because of previous background of enmity. On analysis, we find that the argument is completely hypothetical and is liable to be rejected. Modi, a renowned authority on medical jurisprudence, has opined that in northern India, the duration of rigour mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer. On analysis, we find that the argument is completely hypothetical and is liable to be rejected. Modi, a renowned authority on medical jurisprudence, has opined that in northern India, the duration of rigour mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 36 hours in summer. In general, rigour mortis sets in 1 to 2 hours after death, is well developed from head to feet in above 12 hours, is maintained for about 12 hours and passes off in about 12 hours. The two murders, as per the prosecution, took place at about 7 a. m. on 20-10-1993 and at the time of postmortem between 5/6 p. m. that day, rigour mortis was present all over. Rigour mortis having well developed from head to feet in about 12 hours was to be there for another about 12 hours and was to pass off in about 12 hours. Therefore, the factum of rigour mortis having been found all over the two dead bodies reconciles with the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. But mere possibility that the incident might have taken place between 12 and 18 hours of the conduct of the postmortem, cannot overshadow the satisfactory prosecution evidence of eye-witnesses about the time when the incident took place. We accordingly reject the argument disputing the time of the incident on the premise of rigour mortis. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants then pointed out that as per the postmortem report of Vijai Pal Singh 150 ml semi-solid semi-digested food material was found in his stomach and according to Dr. A. K. Bansal P. W. 4, he must have taken food 3 or 4 hours before his death. This argument is another attempt to create doubt as to the time of the incident. It is urged that as per the prosecution, murder of Vijai Pal was committed at about 6. 45 a. m. on 20-10-1993 and it is quite unusual and unnatural that he would have taken food at about 3 oclock in the night. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the stomach condition of Vijai Pal Singh shows that he was murdered much before 7 a. m. It is suggested that he must have been murdered three or four hours after his dinner in the night which he would have taken latest by 11 p. m. the preceding night. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the stomach condition of Vijai Pal Singh shows that he was murdered much before 7 a. m. It is suggested that he must have been murdered three or four hours after his dinner in the night which he would have taken latest by 11 p. m. the preceding night. Suffice it to say in this regard that stomach contents cannot be a sure guide to determine time of death. Moreover, stomach contents of Vijai Pal Singh were not identifiable. In other words, it could not be said as to what material he had eaten. The prosecution case and the evidence is that he, Chandra Pal P. W. 1 and Balbir Singh P. W. 3 had to start the journey early in the morning for Bulandshahr in connection with compromise in consolidation case. The possibility is very much there that Vijai Pal Singh had risen 2-3 hours before the journey time and had consumed something (as he was to be out for the whole day) and the same came to be there in the form of semi-digested material in his stomach at the time of postmortem. To our mind, the learned counsel for the appellants is unsuccessfully fumbling in imaginary technicalities to make a dent in the prosecution case which is proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt. ( 17 ) YET another argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the F. I. R. was ante-timed. It has been pointed out that in the F. I. R. , the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence has been shown as about 5 kms, but in the inquest reports of the two deceased, the distance is mentioned as 6 kms. According to him, it bears testimony to the fact that the F. I. R. was not even in existence when the inquest reports were prepared. It is not possible to accept this argument. It may be pointed out that case crime number and the date with time of the lodging of F. I. R. are found mentioned in both the inquest reports. It is not possible to accept this argument. It may be pointed out that case crime number and the date with time of the lodging of F. I. R. are found mentioned in both the inquest reports. There is no rule that distances of the police station from the place of occurrence should reconcile with that made in the chik report and should be made only on the basis of the same irrespective of own impression of the Officer preparing the inquest report regarding the distance. It is further to be observed that there is no significant difference between "about 5 kms" and "about 6 kms". If the Officer preparing inquest reports, mentioned the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence on his personal knowledge or impression in the inquest reports, that does not permit jumping to the conclusion that the F. I. R. was not in existence at that time. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants then urged that as per the post-mortem report of Surendra Singh, his firearm injuries were on the backside. It has been urged that Chandra Pal P. W. 1 stated that Surendra was ahead and the assailants behind him, but statement of Vimla Devi P. W. 2 wife of Surendra is that her husband and the shooters were facing each other at the time of shooting. This contradiction, according to him, indicates that these two witnesses were not at all there and were speaking on the basis of their imagination. It would be relevant to state that Surendra was not a static or stationary object. On being chased by his assailants, he was to make all efforts to avoid the shots. The mental state of the eye-witnesses because of shock and horror can also be visualized. They cannot be branded to be liars because one says that the assailants were on the back of the target and the other one says that they were facing each other. Power of observation and description in words also differs from man to man. The truthful witnesses cannot be expected to detail and narrate the incident in a parrot like manner with mathematical accuracy as if they were watching at ease every frown and smile as if sitting in a cinema hall. Power of observation and description in words also differs from man to man. The truthful witnesses cannot be expected to detail and narrate the incident in a parrot like manner with mathematical accuracy as if they were watching at ease every frown and smile as if sitting in a cinema hall. While examining the evidence of witnesses, we have to inform ourselves that variance on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishment in its essential parts cannot militate against the veracity of core of the testimony, provided there is the conformity to probabilities and ring of truth in the substantial fabric of the testimony. In respect of the testimonial assertions of the three eye-witnesses, the central core of their deposition has remained consistent as to the guilt of the accused appellants. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the appellant Ajai Kumar was juvenile of less than of 16 years of age when this incident took place on 20-10-1993. It is to be pointed out that on 27-1-2000, an application was made for medical treatment of the appellant Ajai lodged in jail. No plea was, however, taken about his age at the trial. But by order dated 27-1-2000 this Court, inter alia, directed a report to be obtained about his age also after his medical examination. It was also directed that an affidavit be filed from his side indicating his age and also, if he studied in any school, together with the document in support of his age. No affidavit or document was filed on behalf of the appellant Ajai Kumar. During the course of argument in appeal, it has been contended that he was juvenile at the time of commission of this crime. In compliance of the Courts order, Chief Medical Officer, Agra caused relevant X-ray of Ajai Kumar to be taken on 9-3-2000 and on the basis of the medical data reported on 13-3-2000 that he was aged about 25 years. That means to say, he was aged around 18 years at the time of the incident on 20-10-1993. Therefore, the argument claiming the appellant Ajai to be juvenile at the time of commission of this crime is without foundation. It is simply a desperate attempt to get away from legal consequences of serious crime committed by him. We reject this argument. Therefore, the argument claiming the appellant Ajai to be juvenile at the time of commission of this crime is without foundation. It is simply a desperate attempt to get away from legal consequences of serious crime committed by him. We reject this argument. ( 20 ) WE have dealt with above all the arguments raised from the side of the appellants in support of the appeal and we do not locate any merit in any of them. It is rather established beyond doubt that the appellants committed this double murder with pre-meditation. They were sharing the common intention of each other and played positive role in translating their common intention to reality by liquidating Vijay Pal and Surendra in a brutal and merciless manner. Their conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. read with Section 34, I. P. C. is perfectly justified. The sentence of life imprisonment passed against each of them which is lesser of the two alternative punishments provided for murder and imposition of a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 on each of them also does not call for any interference by this Court of appeal. ( 21 ) WE hereby dismiss this appeal. The appellant Bhupendra is on bail whereas other two appellants Devendra Singh and Ajai Kumar are in jail. Bhupendra shall be arrested and lodged in jail and all the three shall undergo the sentences imposed on them by the lower Court. ( 22 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr shall take necessary steps for the arrest of the appellant No. 1. Bhupendra in consequence of dismissal of this appeal and report the compliance of the order within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal dismissed. . .