Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J: 1. COMPLAINT: - On or about April 16, 2001 Jogeshwar Sarkar, PW-1 made a written complaint to the officer in-charge, Gopalnagar Police Station that he along with other villagers of village Nahata, Post Office – Nahata, Police Station- Gopalnagar discovered a dead body in a sack under Nahata Bridge near his house at about 2.00 p.m. Police came and with the help of the villagers uncovered the dead body. The villagers could not identify the dead body who was female, aged about thirty-six/thirty-eight years old, according to Jogeshwar. On the basis of the said complaint the concerned Police Station initiated a case under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code as P.S. Case No.31 dated April 16, 2001. The Police also started an unnatural death case no.12 of 2007 dated April 16, 2001. PW-14 , Pankaj Kumar Biswas investigated into the matter. He prepared Inquest Report appearing at pages 3-9 of the Paper Book. He also prepared a sketch map along with an index appearing at pages 10-13 thereof. PW-10 carried the postmortem examination and submitted a report appearing at page 14 of the Paper Book. The doctor opined that death was due to strangulation after commission of rape upon the victim. The doctor also opined that the approximate time of the death was sixty hours prior to conducting of the postmortem examination which was carried on September 17, 2001. According to the doctor, the death was anti mortem and homicidal in nature. The dead body was subsequently identified. The victim was the daughter of PW-5 and PW-6. The victim was found missing from her house from the evening of April 14, 2001. After identification of the dead body the brother of the victim being PW-7 also made a written complaint as against three accused being Sailen, Samir and Babu. According to the complaint, all three approached the house of the victim and asked permission of her parents to take her to a cinema. They came at about 5’O clock in the evening when PW5 did not agree. They again came at 7’O clock in the evening and took the victim along with them. Since then the victim was missing. At about 11 p.m. the victim’s relatives being PW-4, 5 and 7 approached the accused and met them at their house. On enquiry, the accused expressed their inability to disclose the whereabouts of the victim. They again came at 7’O clock in the evening and took the victim along with them. Since then the victim was missing. At about 11 p.m. the victim’s relatives being PW-4, 5 and 7 approached the accused and met them at their house. On enquiry, the accused expressed their inability to disclose the whereabouts of the victim. The Police subsequently arrested all three of them. Initially, they were absconding. Sailen was arrested on April 30, 2001, Babu was arrested subsequently, so was Samir. Since Samir was a minor his case was separately dealt with under the appropriate Juvenile Law. Sailen and Babu were chargesheeted. During trial Sailen was granted bail on July 27, 2001. He again absconded. He was re-arrested on January 25, 2008 and was again granted bail on July 11, 2008. Both the accused denied charges and opted to be tried. After the trial was complete and judgment was awaiting Babu again absconded. Sailen was however taken into custody on being found guilty of the offence by the learned Trial Judge. 2. EVIDNECE: - VILLAGERS WHO DISCOVERED THE DEADBODY: PW- 1; 2 & 3 (Jogeshwar Sarkar; Bhuban Debnath & Tarini Haldar):- PW-1, 2 and 3 discovered the dead body under the Nahata Bridge. Jogeshwar was the informant. He lodged the complaint with the Police as referred to above. He was consistent with his complaint exhibited during the trial. Bhuban also discovered the dead body along with Jogeshwar. He corroborated PW-1. According to him, the female was about thirty/thirty-one years old whereas according to Jogeshwar, she was thirty-six/thirty-eight years old. Tarini was also consistent with PW-1 and 2. They all found another sack containing one palm-shoe and wearing apparel. The place under the bridge was somehow muddy. According to Tarini, about thousand people assembled to watch the dead body. Tarini however did not say anything about the age of the victim. According to them, body was discovered at about 2.00 – 2.30 p.m. The Police conducted the post mortem at 5.00 p.m. They put their signature at the request of the Police. RELATIVES:- PW-4, 5, 6 and 7 ( Bashudeb Sarkar, Joshna Rani Sarkar, Saraswati Sarkar & Joy Deb Sarkar) :- PW-4 and 5 were the unfortunate parents whereas PW-6 and 7 were the siblings. RELATIVES:- PW-4, 5, 6 and 7 ( Bashudeb Sarkar, Joshna Rani Sarkar, Saraswati Sarkar & Joy Deb Sarkar) :- PW-4 and 5 were the unfortunate parents whereas PW-6 and 7 were the siblings. PW-4 stated that Sailen, Samir and Babu called his daughter to show a film at about 6.00 p.m. On that day she did not come back. After searching here and there they went to the house of the accused. The accused were not available in their houses. About three days later he got information that the dead body was found under Nahata Bridge inside a sack. They went to Gopalnagar Police Station and then to morgue and identified the dead body to be of his daughter. He was a rickshaw puller. His wife used to work as cook in the house of others. It was a festive day of first Baisak. The lady went for cooking in the neighbourhood. PW-8 was the local C.P.I.M. leader and had good terms with him. In every matter he used to get help from PW-8. PW-5 was the unfortunate mother of the victim. Sailen, Samir and Babu approached her at about 4 p.m. at her house and asked for permission to take the victim for cinema. Initially, she did not allow. Again at 7 p.m. Samir and Babu came to their house and convinced her that they would bring the victim for cinema and after the cinema show they would bring her back to her house. She gave permission. Victim went out with them. At the night she did not come back. Her husband and her son went to the house of the accused persons. All the three accused divulged that victim had left for her house after watching the cinema. They even faltered to disclose anything more. Next day they lodged a missing diary with Haringhata Police Station and after about three days they got information that a deadbody was recovered from Nawahata Bridge. They identified the body after seeing her wearing apparel. The body was cremated after being brought from Bongoan Hospital. The accused raped her daughter and murdered her. All of them were identified by the witness. They identified the body after seeing her wearing apparel. The body was cremated after being brought from Bongoan Hospital. The accused raped her daughter and murdered her. All of them were identified by the witness. In cross-examination she however deposed that she did not divulge to the Police that the accused had come to their house and had taken her daughter away after convincing her for going to cinema show or that they had gone to the house of the accused in search of the victim. PW-6 was the sister of the victim. She was also consistent with her parents. PW-7 was the brother of the victim. He was also consistent with his parents and sister. He also deposed that the left shoe of the victim was recovered by the Police at the instance of accused Sailen. Same was found from a garden. In cross-examination he disclosed that he was also an accused in a rape case. He also disclosed that Sailen was distantly related to them. He was however unable to give the measurement of the shoe of her sister. PW-8 (Sunil Das): - This witness was the local C.P.I.M. leader. According to him, the villagers recovered a shoe from the banana garden of Jogendra Nath Sarkar and kept it in his house. He also identified the small hole in the banana garden to the Police. The Police took the shoe from his house and seized the same. He was signatory to the seizure list. Except the seizure of the shoe he had no knowledge about the present case. PW-9 (Buddhi Sarkar): - The witness was a Van Puller who carried the dead body from Nawhata to Gopal Nagar Police Station. PW-10 (Dr. Hirendra Nath Dutta): - The witness was the Medical Officer working in Bangaon S.D. Hospital as Superintendent. On April 17, 2001 he conducted the post mortem of the dead body identified by one Nagen Gurung, Constable attached to Gopalnagar Police Station. He proved the Post mortem Report disclosed in evidence. According to him, the cause of death was due to severe shock and haemorrhage from vagina caused by rape and due to effects of strangulation by ligature as noted in the report, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The doctor also examined Sailen and found him potent. Sailen admitted before him that he had enjoyed the sexual intercourse with the deceased before the murder. The doctor also examined Sailen and found him potent. Sailen admitted before him that he had enjoyed the sexual intercourse with the deceased before the murder. Such statement was made by him in presence of constable Nagen Gurung of Gopalnagar Police Station. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that the dead body was decomposed. PW-11 and PW-12 ( Harendra Nath Biswas & Moslim Mondal) :- These two witnesses were declared hostile. Harendra Nath stated that neither the victim nor her father was known to him. He did not state to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the victim along with Samir and Babu on their way to cinema hall on the date of occurrence. He also did not state to the Investigating Officer that that all the three accused were anti-socials. He did not see the dead body. He however admitted that he had been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, however did not disclose what statement he had made before the Police. Moslim denied having interrogated by the Investigating Officer. He also stated that he neither knew Basudeb nor his daughter, the victim. He stated that he had not stated to the Investigating Officer that he had knowledge that three accused had taken away the victim from her house and murdered her and fled away. He also did not state to the Investigating Officer that they had succeeded to apprehend accused Samir at night one day when Samir had confessed before them that they had murdered the victim after having raped her. He also did not state to the Investigating Officer that they had informed Police Station over telephone and Samir had been handed over to the Police when Investigating Officer had reached their village. PW-12, PW-14 & PW-15 (Samaresh Chandra Sarkar, Pankaj Kr. Biswas & Shyamal Kr. Sarkar): - The above witnesses conducted the investigation during different period. Samaresh was posted at Haringhata Police Station when he took up the investigation. During investigation he collected the forensic report and submitted charge sheet under Section 302/376/201 of the Indian Penal code against the accused. Pankaj was posted at Gopalnagar Police Station on April 16, 2001. He conducted the investigation. After receipt of the information he held investigation up till the period when the case was transferred to Haringhata Police Station. He proved the FIR which was tendered as exhibit. He also proved the G.D. Entry and Enquiry Report. Pankaj was posted at Gopalnagar Police Station on April 16, 2001. He conducted the investigation. After receipt of the information he held investigation up till the period when the case was transferred to Haringhata Police Station. He proved the FIR which was tendered as exhibit. He also proved the G.D. Entry and Enquiry Report. According to him, the dead body was kept in a plastic packet whereas another plastic packet contained wearing apparel, shoe etc. He seized both the packets. As per the seizure list accused Sailen disclosed to him that one shoe was kept concealed in the banana garden. Sailen was taken to the banana garden, when he brought out the shoe from inside a hole covered with banana leaves, the seizure list was prepared. The witnesses signed the seizure list. The shoe discovered from the banana garden was of the left leg. He also briefly stated how he had carried investigation. According to him, PW-11 (Harendra Nath Biswas) had told him that he had seen victim going to cinema at about 7 p.m. along with all the three accused. The names of the accused were disclosed by Joydeb on April 17, 2001. PW- 15 took up the investigation on and from June 22, 2001 when the case was transferred to Haringhata Police Station from Gopalnagar Police Station. Pankaj Biswas arrested Samir on June 30, 2001. On July 17, 2001 Samir was medically examined. On August 2, 2001 his ossification test was done. On September 24, 2001 the Hero Jet maroon colour ladies bi-cycle was seized from the house of Samir. Accused Babu was absconding and prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest was submitted by Shyamal. He sent vaginal swab of the victim for medical examination. 3. EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED :- Sailen and Babu were examined by the learned Judge. Apart from bare denial of the charges, they neither stated anything in addition to what the witnesses had said nor disclosed their alibi. Sailen denied having made any statement to the doctor. According to him, he signed the seizure list on being asked by the Officer in-charge at the Police Station on the assurance that he would be released on bail. Babu also denied the charges brought against him. 4. JUDGMENT :- The learned Judge held both the accused guilty of the offence and convicted them under Section 302/376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code. Babu also denied the charges brought against him. 4. JUDGMENT :- The learned Judge held both the accused guilty of the offence and convicted them under Section 302/376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code. Sailen was sentenced for life together with a fine of rupees five thousand, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 201 and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for seven years coupled with a fine of rupees three thousand and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge however did not formally convict Babu or impose any punishment on him as Babu was absconding at the time of delivery of the judgment. We find that Babu absconded after the hearing was complete as recorded by the learned Judge in his judgment. 5. ANALYSIS:- Analysis of the judgment would reveal that the learned Trial Judge based his judgment on the theory of “last seen together”. The learned Judge disbelieved Sunil Das, the C.P.I.M. leader on the issue of recovery of shoe. The learned Judge also rejected the extra judicial confession sought to have been made by the accused before the autopsy surgeon relying on Section 26 of the Evidence Act. On the issue of motive/intention the learned Judge was of the view that the accused committed rape upon the victim without her consent. The mark of violance was apparent on the body of the victim. They killed the victim and threw her body near Nwahata Bridge far away from the place of occurrence. The learned Judge finally concluded that the circumstance that came out in evidence and emerged, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of events as briefly narrated by the learned Judge is quoted as follows: - “1. The victim girl i.e., Lakshmi Sarkar was called away by the instant accused person and his accomplices from her house on 14.4.01 around the evening. 2. The deadbody packed in a small gunny bag was found lying near Nahata bridge under Gopalnagar P.S. on 16.4.01. 3. Another small gunny bag packed with upper portion of churidar, orna and a pump shoe of right leg was found lying beside the deadbody. 4. The said deadbody was taken to Gopal Nagar P.S. and then to morgue for P.M. examination. 5. 3. Another small gunny bag packed with upper portion of churidar, orna and a pump shoe of right leg was found lying beside the deadbody. 4. The said deadbody was taken to Gopal Nagar P.S. and then to morgue for P.M. examination. 5. P.W.4 and P.W.7 went to Gopal Nagar P.S. and identified the deadbody to be of Lakshmi, the daughter of P.W.4. 6. P.M. examination report proves that Lakshmi was raped and thereafter murdered. 7. On 17.4.01 P.W.7 submitted a statement in writing before Gopalnagar P.S. stating names of 3 accused person. 8. Discovery of the shoe of left leg of Lakshmi, the deceased at the instance of accused Sailen establishes link between the crime and criminal. 9. P.W. 7, the elder brother of the deceased identified the shoe of his sister. P.W.8 the independent witness indirectly supports the recovery of the shoe at the instance of the accused person. 10. Accused Sailen was arrested on 30.4.01 as stated by P.W. 14. 11. The hole from the inside of which the shoe was recovered at the instance of accused Sailen is not easily traceable and accessible to the public. 12. Motive behind the crime makes itself to be conspicuously present.” 6. THIS APPEAL: - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, Sailen preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned dates. 7. AMICUS CURIAE: - Appellant Sailen was in jail when the appeal appeared before us. He was not represented by any lawyer. Initially Mr. Prabir Mazumdar being led by Mr. Joymalya Bagchi appeared for the appellant. However when the appeal appeared in our list nobody came forward to represent him. We thus requested Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned senior counsel to represent the appellant before us by taking assistance of Ms.Sabila Rahman. We also requested the learned Public Prosecutor to regularize their appointment. Mr. Dutta was kind enough to appear before us and assist us in disposing of this appeal by making his valuable contribution with the able assistance of Ms. Rahman. 8. CONTENTION OF THE CONVICT/ APPELLANT: - Mr. Dutta contended as follows: - (i) There were irregularities in the investigation which vitiated the entire proceeding. (ii) There had been material discrepancy with regard to the actual age of the victim. (iii) Blood Group of the victim was not tallied with the blood stain found on the wearing apparel. Rahman. 8. CONTENTION OF THE CONVICT/ APPELLANT: - Mr. Dutta contended as follows: - (i) There were irregularities in the investigation which vitiated the entire proceeding. (ii) There had been material discrepancy with regard to the actual age of the victim. (iii) Blood Group of the victim was not tallied with the blood stain found on the wearing apparel. (iv) In the complaint before the Police the names of the accused were not initially disclosed by the complainant. No attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the victim accompanied the accused to the cinema hall and watched the cinema show. (v) No nexus could be established between the victim and the accused/appellant to base the order of conviction. (vi) The Police vehicle, which carried the accused/appellant to the banana garden for alleged recovery of the left leg shoe, did not feature during trial as neither the vehicle number was disclosed nor the driver was examined. The Log Book was also not produced. (vii) The questions put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not include all incriminating evidence that came out during trial. Hence on the said ground alone the conviction should be set aside. (viii) The story alleged by the prosecution was strange and unusual in absence of contemporaneous non-disclosure of the alleged incident of watching cinema show by the victim in the company of the accused. To elaborate his contentions Mr. Dutta contended that there were two G.D. Entries that were highly irregular. Two complaints were relied upon by the prosecution, one by Jogeshwar and the other by Joydeb. There could not be two FIR in one single case. He also contended that from the tenor of the evidence it would be clear that the accused were subsequently implicated which was nothing but an after thought. He also put emphasis on the evidence of Sunil Das and contended that the evidence of PW-8 would belie the case of the prosecution that the shoe was seized at the instance of the accused/appellant. Mr. Dutta also placed the judgment of the Court below and highlighted the discrepancy in appreciation of facts. To support his contention Mr. He also put emphasis on the evidence of Sunil Das and contended that the evidence of PW-8 would belie the case of the prosecution that the shoe was seized at the instance of the accused/appellant. Mr. Dutta also placed the judgment of the Court below and highlighted the discrepancy in appreciation of facts. To support his contention Mr. Dutta cited the following decisions: - (i) All India Reporter 1975 Supreme Court Page-216 (Ravulappalli Kondaiah & Others – VS- State of Andhra Pradesh) (ii) 2007 Volume-XI Supreme Court Cases Page-434 (Anokh Singh –VS- State of Punjab) (iii) 2007 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page-755 (Sanjay Thakran & Another –VS-State of Goa) (iv) 2008 Volume-XI Supreme Court Cases Page-168 (B. Vishwanath –VS- State of Karnataka) (v) 2008 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page-210 (Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla –VS- State of Maharashtra) (vi) 2009 Volume-XIII Supreme Court Cases Page-534 (Tipparam Prabhakar –VS- State of Andhra Pradesh) (vii) 2010 Volume-III, Supreme Court Cases Page-675 (Jiten Besra –VS- State of West Bengal) 9. CONTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION :- Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution contended as follows: - From the conduct of the appellant and the co-accused it would be apparent that they committed the heinous crime resulting death of the victim. Ms. Gomes further contended that all the three accused, from time to time, absconded. The present appellant was initially absconding. After his arrest, he was granted bail. Against he absconded and subsequently re-arrested. That would strengthen the case of the prosecution. Ms. Gomes took us to the exhibits including the statements of the prosecution witnesses made during investigation. According to her, the autopsy surgeon being an independent witness having no interest in the matter categorically deposed that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before him. Such confession found corroboration from the other witnesses. Hence, the chain was complete. According to Ms. Gomes, the decisions cited by Mr. Dutta would rather help the prosecution to have an order of affirmation of the conviction. 10. REPLY:- In reply, Mr. Dutta contended that the statements made during investigation under Section 161 could not be looked into by the Court of Law either during trial or at the appellate stage. He referred to Section 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act in this regard. 11. OUR VIEW:- We have carefully perused the evidence that came out during trial. We are extremely grateful to Mr. He referred to Section 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act in this regard. 11. OUR VIEW:- We have carefully perused the evidence that came out during trial. We are extremely grateful to Mr. Dutta for ably assisting us to come to a right conclusion. It is true that there were some irregularity in the matter of investigation. That, in our view, could not brush aside the evidence that came out during trial implicating the accused particularly the appellant. The parents as well as siblings consistently stated that the accused had approached them for permission to take the victim for a cinema show. Initially, the mother did not agree, however gave permission subsequently on the assurance that they would bring the girl back to the house soon after the cinema show. PW-11 and 13 saw them going to the cinema show, however denied having made such statement to the Police and were declared hostile. If we ignore their evidence we would find that the victim’s family members were consistent that the victim had left the house and had been last seen together in the company of the accused. In such event the accused owed responsibility to explain how they had parted the company of the accused. No such attempt was made by the accused particularly the appellant. They flatly denied the incident. They even denied having acquaintance with the victim or her family during examination under Section 313. It is not correct to say that the learned Judge did not put all the incriminating evidence before the accused. There is no straight jacket formula in regard to examination of the accused under Section 313. What is required, is whether all the important factors that came out during trial leading to the accusation of the crime by the accused must be put to them and they understand the same. Once the result of such test is positive minor irregularity would not matter. From the reply given by the accused we do not find any scope to have a conception that the accused did not understand what had been stated against them or the learned Judge missed out any important factor to be placed before the accused. Lot was said about the discrepancy in age. PW-1, 2 and 3 were villagers. They discovered the dead body. They never saw the victim alive. They did not know her. Lot was said about the discrepancy in age. PW-1, 2 and 3 were villagers. They discovered the dead body. They never saw the victim alive. They did not know her. It did not come out in evidence that they had watched the dead body from a close distance or personally handled the dead body for bringing out the same from the sack or otherwise. Hence, their perception about the age should not be given so much importance. The bereaved family identified the dead body. According to them, the victim was a minor and that was accepted by the autopsy surgeon, at least we do not find any contrary view expressed by the autopsy surgeon. Hence, such contention has no basis. Lot was said about the evidence of Sunil Das with regard to recovery of the left leg shoe. The learned Judge disbelieved Sunil, gave his reasons. We do not find any scope of disagreement on that score. The victim was found dead. Her death was certified by an independent expert witness as ante mortem and homicidal in nature. It further came out during examination that the victim was raped before her death. Hence the factum of rape and murder was proved beyond doubt. The victim was last seen in the company of the accused/appellant along with two other accused. No attempt was made by the appellant to explain as to how he parted with the company. No alibi was taken by the appellant with any probable story which could raise doubt in the mind of the Court that it might not be possible for the appellant to be at the place of occurrence on the fateful night. No attempt was made to place such a probable story and/or alibi on behalf of the appellant. The decision in the case of Ravulappalli Kondaiah & Others (Supra) was cited on the issue of omission on the part of the parents or the siblings in disclosing of the names of the accused at the initial stage. This decision, in our view, would not help the appellant. If we closely study the case we would find that Police started the investigation on the basis of the complaint of Jogeswar. The family members made the missing diary at Haringhata Police Station. This decision, in our view, would not help the appellant. If we closely study the case we would find that Police started the investigation on the basis of the complaint of Jogeswar. The family members made the missing diary at Haringhata Police Station. At that stage for some reason they did not disclose the names of the accused, probably to cover up anticipated slur on the minor girl. However once she was found dead their names were immediately disclosed to the Police. On the last seen theory the decision in the case of Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla (Supra) was cited. Also cited was the decision in the case of Sanjay Thakran & Another (Supra). In those cases the Apex Court considered each and every important factor involved therein and ultimately came to a conclusion that the circumstantial evidence so came out during trial did not complete the chain and as such set aside the conviction. We do not find any support to the contention of the appellant. In this regard we may refer to the decision in the case of Tipparam Prabhakar (Supra) where long gap between “last seen together” and “commission of the crime” was considered as fatal for the prosecution. In the instant case, at about 11.00 p.m. the parents were told by the accused that victim had left for home after watching the cinema show whereas the autopsy surgeon opined that the offence was committed approximately sixty hours before conducting the post mortem examination. If we consider that the post mortem examination was held at 12.00 noon on april 17 we can safely conclude that the offence was committed around mid night. At about 11.00 p.m. the accused was found without the company of the victim whereas they were last seen together at 7.00 p.m., meaning thereby, the offence was committed within four/five hours after they had been last seen together. On circumstantial evidence reliance was placed on Anokh Singh (Supra) and Jiten Besra (Supra). In those two cases the Apex Court put emphasis on non-examination of the clothes of the accused. The Apex Court also considered other circumstance so came out in evidence and ultimately set aside the conviction. In the instant case we are convinced that the chain was complete as discussed in detail by us hereinbefore. In those two cases the Apex Court put emphasis on non-examination of the clothes of the accused. The Apex Court also considered other circumstance so came out in evidence and ultimately set aside the conviction. In the instant case we are convinced that the chain was complete as discussed in detail by us hereinbefore. We do not find any scope to hold otherwise than what was held by the learned Judge of the Court below. 12. RESULT: - The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. DIRECTION: - The appellant is now in jail. He is directed to serve out the remaining part of his sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Judge. A copy of this judgment be sent to the correctional home, where the appellant is suffering the sentence, for his information. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent to the Court of learned Trial Judge for information and necessary action. Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. I agree.