ORDER : Deepak Gupta, CJ. These two cases are being disposed of by one common Judgment since they both arise out of the same FIR and the same Judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in S.T. 15 (ST/U) 2007. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30th May, 2006, an FIR was lodged by one Smt. Amina Bibi in which she alleged that at about 10.30 a.m./11 a.m. when her brother’s wife Manoara Bibi was walking on a path, the accused persons started abusing her sister-in-law and used vulgar language against her. When she protested against the use of such abuses, the accused persons attacked the brother’s wife with dao, lathi and assaulted her with lathi, caught hold of her hair and went on delivering kicks and fist blows to her. Her brother Mangal Khan went running to the spot and he was also assaulted with a lathi. Accused No.1 Farid Khan also gave a blow with a dao on the person of Mangal Khan. Thereafter, Mangal Khan and his wife were taken to the Tripura Sundari hospital, Udaipur. The name of the accused persons are Farid Khan, Jahangir Khan, Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi. Mangal Khan died a few days later and the case was converted to under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons. The accused persons were charged with having committed the murder of Mangal Khan with a common intention. After trial, the learned trial Court acquitted Jharna Bibi and Ayesha Bibi but held that the case was proved against Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan and they were convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 part II IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for another one year. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the convicts Farid Khan and Jahangir Khan have filed Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008. 4. Criminal Revision Petition No.61 of 2008 has been filed by Manoara Bibi, wife of deceased Mangal Khan in which she has prayed that the acquittal of Jharna Bibi and Ayesha Bibi is not proper and has prayed that all the four accused be convicted for the offence of murder. 5. 4. Criminal Revision Petition No.61 of 2008 has been filed by Manoara Bibi, wife of deceased Mangal Khan in which she has prayed that the acquittal of Jharna Bibi and Ayesha Bibi is not proper and has prayed that all the four accused be convicted for the offence of murder. 5. The most important witness is P.W. 12 Monoara Bibi. While appearing in Court, she stated that on 30th May, 2006 at about 7.30 a.m. she was returning to her own house from the house of her mother-in-law. At that stage, she was intercepted by Farid Khan and his wife Ayesha Bibi. They dragged her down on the road and pushed her against a bamboo fence. When she was returning home, she informed her husband Mangal Khan about the incident. Thereafter, at about 10.30 a.m. her husband was going to the house of the local Pradhan to report the incident. On the way, her husband was detained by Farid Khan and his wife and then Jahangir Khan struck a lathi blow on the head of her husband. Farid Khan dealt a dao blow on her husband after snatching the dao from the hand of his wife. Her husband Mangal Khan fell down on the ground but he was kicked by Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan. They also punched him while he was lying on the ground. The two ladies Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi also assaulted her husband with lathis. After she raised an alarm, Farid Khan also attacked her and gave her 2/3 blows of the lathi and she fell down on the ground. She and her husband were taken to the Tripura Sundari District hospital. On 01.06.2006 her husband was shifted to G.B. hospital, Agartala where he died on 04.06.2006. According to this witness, when her husband was attacked she was standing in front of the gate of her house. She was cross-examined and admitted that she had not told the investigating officer that when her husband was assaulted he was going to the house of the local Pradhan. She also admitted that she had not stated to the I.O. that she was standing in front of the gate of her house when the alleged attack took place. She also stated that on 30th May, 2006 she was admitted to the Female Ward of the TSD hospital and her husband was admitted to the Male Ward. She also admitted that she had not stated to the I.O. that she was standing in front of the gate of her house when the alleged attack took place. She also stated that on 30th May, 2006 she was admitted to the Female Ward of the TSD hospital and her husband was admitted to the Male Ward. Both Wards were on the ground floor of the hospital. On 30th May, 2006, her husband came to the female Ward in the afternoon to meet her and also served tea to her. 6. The other important witness is P.W.1 Amina Bibi, who had lodged the FIR. In Court she stated that she heard the sound of quarrel and she rushed to the spot of the incident and saw Jahangir Khan assaulting her brother Mangal Khan with fists and blows. Thereafter, Farid Khan, Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi appeared at the spot of incident armed with daos and lathis. Farid Khan snatched the dao from his wife and then dealt a blow of the dao on her brother Mangal Khan. All the accused assaulted her brother. Thereafter, she raised an alarm when about 20 persons reached the spot. Her brother and sister-in-law were then taken to the hospital. A suggestion was put to her that Mangal Khan had pressed the testis of Jahangir Khan and stripped him of his wearing napkin and there was free fight between the two sides. 7. P.W. 3 states that when she was returning to her house after collecting cow-dung she saw Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan assaulting Mangal Khan with dao and lathi. She then raised an alarm and on hearing her cries the sister and brother-in-law of Mangal Khan rushed to the spot of the incident. Thereafter, many other persons reached the spot. According to her, the two ladies Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi were also present at the spot of occurrence and Farid Khan’s wife was armed with a dao. In cross-examination, the witness states that she had heard that during his stay at Tripura Sundari hospital, Jahangir Khan had fallen on the floor of the bathroom and sustained head injury and for that injury he was shifted to the G.B. hospital. 8. P.W. 4 Smt. Monoara Begam was a member of the Panchayat at the relevant time. In cross-examination, the witness states that she had heard that during his stay at Tripura Sundari hospital, Jahangir Khan had fallen on the floor of the bathroom and sustained head injury and for that injury he was shifted to the G.B. hospital. 8. P.W. 4 Smt. Monoara Begam was a member of the Panchayat at the relevant time. According to her, at 10.30 a.m., she heard a hue and cry near her house and she saw Mangal Khan, Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan having an altercation with each other on the road in front of the house. Mangal Khan complained to her that the accused Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan had closed the passage for going to his tank. She advised Mangal Khan to inform the eminent persons of the village and left the spot. Later, she came to know that there had been a quarrel and at that time Mangal Khan was being taken to G.B. hospital. The witness was declared hostile but did not say anything further. In cross-examination she states that Jahangir Khan was also admitted in hospital. 9. P.W. 5 is Jalil Miah and Mangal Khan was his brother-in-law. According to him, at about 10.30 a.m. on 30th May, 2006, they heard a hue and cry and rushed to the spot. At the spot he found Farid Khan, Jahangir Khan, Jharna Bibi and Ayesha Bibi assaulting Mangal Khan with dao and lathi on the kachha road in between the house of Farid Khan and Jahangir Khan. Jahangir Khan gave lathi blow on the head of Mangal Khan and then Farid Khan dealt a dao blow on the right side of the eye of Mangal Khan. The accused Jahangir Khan also gave several bites on the shoulder of Mangal Khan. When his wife went to rescue her brother then she was also pushed away and kicked. 10. P.W. 7 Ajij Khan states that on hearing a hue and cry he came out of his house and saw Jahangir Khan, Farid Khan, Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi assaulting Mangal Khan with dao and lathi. His version is similar to the other witnesses. 11. P.W. 11 was the scribe of the complaint. P.W. 2 and 6 did not see the occurrence and their evidence is not relevant. 12. P.W. 9 Dr. Jayanta Sankar Chakraborty conducted the Post Mortem examination on the deceased. He found four injuries. His version is similar to the other witnesses. 11. P.W. 11 was the scribe of the complaint. P.W. 2 and 6 did not see the occurrence and their evidence is not relevant. 12. P.W. 9 Dr. Jayanta Sankar Chakraborty conducted the Post Mortem examination on the deceased. He found four injuries. (i) a contusion on the right side of occipital region of the scalp, measuring 6.5 c.m x 4 c.m.; (ii) lacerated wound with one surgical stitch over lateral aspect of upper eye lid of right eye, measuring 1 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. This wound was muscle deep. (iii) one abraded contusion on right shoulder situated 4 c.m. right to the root of neck, measuring 2.5 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. and (iv) Abraded contusion on lateral aspect of left arm situated 16 c.m. below the tip of shoulder, measuring 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. According to this witness, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapons and they were all ante-mortem in nature. According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was due to the head injury. He has also stated that contusion means effusion of blood into the tissue spaces. According to him, injury No. 1 was visible. He has clearly stated that he did not find any sharp cutting injury on the body of the deceased. 13. The statement of P.W. 13, Dr. Dipak Debbarma is not relevant. 14. P.W. 14 is Dr. Narayan Das of TSD hospital. He states that on examination of the injured Mangal Khan he found one lacerated wound measuring 1/4th inch x 1/4th inch x 1/4th inch on upper lid. The injury was fresh. On 01.06.2006, the patient was referred to G.B. hospital, Agartala for better treatment. He has proved the injury report Ext.9, which bears his signature Ext.9/1. He found no external injury on the person of Monoara Begam, wife of the deceased Mangal Khan. Her injury report is Ext.10. After going through the Bed Head ticket of Mangal Khan, the witness stated that on 31.05.2006 in the evening, the injured Mangal Khan complained of headache. He has proved the injury report Ext.9, which bears his signature Ext.9/1. He found no external injury on the person of Monoara Begam, wife of the deceased Mangal Khan. Her injury report is Ext.10. After going through the Bed Head ticket of Mangal Khan, the witness stated that on 31.05.2006 in the evening, the injured Mangal Khan complained of headache. The witness also states that on clinical examination of Mangal Khan, no head injury was found till 31.05.2006 up to 8.30 p.m. He also stated that the patient was referred to G.B. hospital, Agartala to ascertain whether he received any internal head injury as he complained of headache on 31.05.2006 in the evening. He, however, denied the suggestion that Mangal Khan received head injury falling on the floor of the bathroom of the hospital on 31.05.2006 in the evening. 15. The defendants have also examined six numbers of witnesses. D.W.1, Jharna Bibi states that she left her house at about 10 a.m. since she is employed as a Group D employee in the P.W.D, Division No.1, Udaipur. According to her, she worked till 5 p.m. and she has produced the certificate issued by the SDO, PWD. 16. Jahangir Khan, accused also appeared as his own witness as D.W.2. His version is that when he was returning home after giving private tuition he was abused by Mangal Khan in filthy language. When he raised an objection Mangal Khan dealt a blow on his mouth and thereafter, he fell on the ground. According to him, Mangal Khan took off the napkin which he was wearing and pressed his testis. In the mean time, Julmat Khan and Mafij Miah came and rescued him. He also states that Mangal Khan’s wife Manoara Bibi also attacked him. This witness was also taken to the TSD hospital where he was treated as an outdoor patient on 30th May, 2006. According to him, on 01.06.2006, he was again admitted to the hospital. He also states that one Renu Bibi had told him that Mangal Khan had fallen on the floor of the latrine in the hospital on 31.05.2006. 17. D.W. 3 states that when he was going to his paddy field at about 10.30/11 a.m., he noticed that the deceased Mangal Khan and accused Jahangir Khan were having an altercation in front of the house of Mangal Khan. He then told them not to fight. 17. D.W. 3 states that when he was going to his paddy field at about 10.30/11 a.m., he noticed that the deceased Mangal Khan and accused Jahangir Khan were having an altercation in front of the house of Mangal Khan. He then told them not to fight. He tried to intervene but failed and thereafter, Julmat Khan came to the spot. According to him, neither Mangal Khan nor Jahangir Khan were armed with any weapon of offence. 18. D.W. 4 also gave a similar statement. 19. D.W. 5 Renu Bibi states that she was admitted in the TSD hospital. Thereafter, Mangal Khan and his wife were also admitted in the hospital. This witness states that on the third day of the admission of Mangal Khan in the hospital she heard the wife of Mangal Khan crying that her husband had fallen in the latrine and the sweeper had to bring him out after breaking open the door. Thereafter, Mangal Khan was referred to the G.B. hospital. 20. D.W. 6 is a Staff Nurse of the hospital. She has proved that on 30th May, 2006, Jahangir Khan was treated with as an outdoor Patient. She also stated that on 21.05.2006, Renu Bibi was admitted in the female orthopedic unit of the hospital. Jahangir Khan was again admitted in the hospital on 01.06.2006 with complain of pain and was discharged on 04.06.2006. No question was put to her in cross-examination that Renu Bibi had been discharged prior to 31st May, 2006. 21. From the evidence on record, it is more than obvious that a fight did take place. However, there is no proof as to how the fight takes place. Whereas the prosecution alleges that Farid Khan, Jahangir Khan, Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi attacked the deceased Mangal Khan, the version of other side is that in fact, Mangal Khan had attacked Jahangir Khan. In the FIR, which was lodged by the sister of Mangal Khan, all the four accused are named. She, however, stated that the hacking blow with the dao was given on the eye. She is also an eye witness but did not mention about any head injury. Her version in the FIR was that when P.W. 12 Manoara was walking on the path the accused persons abused her. When Manoara objected the accused persons first attacked Manoara. She, however, stated that the hacking blow with the dao was given on the eye. She is also an eye witness but did not mention about any head injury. Her version in the FIR was that when P.W. 12 Manoara was walking on the path the accused persons abused her. When Manoara objected the accused persons first attacked Manoara. Thereafter her brother Mangal Khan rushed to save his wife and then he was also attacked. In Court her version is totally different. 22. P.W. 12 Manoara Bibi gives a totally different version. According to her, early in the morning she was abused and after she complained to her husband he was going towards the house of the Pradhan to lodge a complaint when the husband was attacked. She states that Jahangir Khan struck a lathi blow on the head of her husband but this was not mentioned in the FIR. P.W. 1 Amina Bibi, at whose instance the FIR was lodged, states that on hearing the sound of altercation she rushed to the spot and she saw Jahangir Khan assaulting her brother Mangal Khan with fists and blows. Thereafter, Farid Khan, Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi appeared at the spot of incident armed with daos and lathis. According to her, Farid Khan took the dao from his wife and dealt a dao blow on the right side on the eye of Mangal Khan. Ayesha Bibi and Jharna Bibi also assaulted her brother with lathis. She does not say anything about Jahangir Khan giving a blow on the head of her brother with a dao. As per her version, Jahangir Khan was not armed and when he was having a fight with her brother Mangal and thereafter, the three other accused came. This version is different to the version of P.W. 12, who had stated that all the four accused were present and had detained her husband. 23. P.W. 3 states that Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan assaulted Mangal Khan with a dao and lathi. He raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, the sister and brother-in-law of Mangal Khan rushed to the spot. He also found the wives of accused Farid and Jahangir standing at the place of occurrence. He is a neighbour of both the parties. He does not name Manoara Bibi, wife of Mangal Khan as being present at the spot. He raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, the sister and brother-in-law of Mangal Khan rushed to the spot. He also found the wives of accused Farid and Jahangir standing at the place of occurrence. He is a neighbour of both the parties. He does not name Manoara Bibi, wife of Mangal Khan as being present at the spot. He does not attribute any overt action to the two accused ladies and he does not ascribe any particular blows to Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan. 24. The version of P.W. 4 is totally different. No doubt, this witness has been declared hostile but according to her, when she was crossing there was an altercation going on between Mangal Khan, Jahangir Khan and Farid Khan. She has not named the two ladies as has been present there. P.W. 5 Jalil Miah states that when he reached the spot he found all the four accused persons assaulting Mangal Khan with dao and lathi and according to him, Jahangir Khan gave lathi blows on the head of Mangal Khan and Farid Khan dealt a dao blow on the right side of the eye of Mangal Khan. He also states that Jahangir Khan gave several bites on the shoulder of Mangal Khan. Here it would be pertinent to mention that in the medical report there are no marks or injuries due to biting. P.W.6 states that when he reached the spot he found that Mangal Khan was beaten by Farid Khan, Jahangir Khan, Jharna Bibi and Ayesha Bibi with dao and lathi and he had also seeing Jahangir Khan biting the shoulder of Mangal Khan. Thereafter, the other villagers came to the spot. Version of P.W. 7 is different. 25. We have dealt with the statements of all the witnesses in detail to point out that there is no consistency in their statements. True it is that when statements of witnesses are recorded after long time, there may be some inconsistencies. This is natural but there should not be any major inconsistencies. As far as the present case is concerned, most of the witnesses cannot state why the fight took place. Who was the aggressor? The statements of P.W. 12 does not inspire confidence. Her statement is different to the statement of other witnesses. This is natural but there should not be any major inconsistencies. As far as the present case is concerned, most of the witnesses cannot state why the fight took place. Who was the aggressor? The statements of P.W. 12 does not inspire confidence. Her statement is different to the statement of other witnesses. There are major contradictions with regard to the blow being given by Jahangir Khan on the head of the deceased. In fact it is apparent that some of the so called eye witnesses were not present. There were only 4 injuries on the deceased as per post mortem report. If the statements of the eye witnesses are to be believed that the deceased Mangal Khan was beaten mercilessly and given dao and lathi blows in the presence of all the witnesses who came later there should have been many more injuries. 26. Coming to the medical evidence, there are great inconsistencies in the same. At the outset, we may note that the Bed Head ticket from TSD hospital or the G.B. hospital has not been proved on record. Dr. Narayan Das, who examined Mangal Khan in the TSD hospital, has clearly stated that he only found one lacerated wound on the eye lid of Mangal Khan. He found no external injury on the person of Monoara Begam, wife of Mangal Khan. He also states that for the first time Mangal Khan complained of headache on the evening of 31.05.2006. He has clearly stated that on clinical examination of Mangal Khan, no head injury was found till 31.05.2006. 27. We have gone through the injury report prepared by this doctor and exhibited as Ext.9. A perusal of this injury report shows that it is virtually a fake report. A report of cases of serious injury, injury report is supposed to be prepared when a patient is admitted to the hospital. In the report it is mentioned that the date of admission in the hospital was 30th May, 2006 at 12.35 p.m. and that the patient Mangal Khan was referred to G.B. hospital on 01.06.2006 at 9 a.m. The injury report reads as follows:- C/O Headache Adv/ CT Scan-brain “H/O Physical assault at 10 AM on 30/5/06. O/E – Lacerated wound ¼” x ¼” ¼” on the right upper lid – Fresh injury (<6Hrs). The patient was referred to GBH, AGMC, Agartala on 01-6-06. O/E – Lacerated wound ¼” x ¼” ¼” on the right upper lid – Fresh injury (<6Hrs). The patient was referred to GBH, AGMC, Agartala on 01-6-06. The final injury report may be obtained from GBH, AGMC. * Case was seen on call by Dr Subhas Kanti Dutta, M.O, TSD. Hospital” 28. It would be pertinent to mention that the words “C/O Headache advised CT Scan brain and fresh injury (<6Hrs)” are not in the same pen and ink and have been obviously added later on. What is worse is that this so-called report is dated 23rd June, 2006. By this time Mangal Khan was dead. Under the Evidence Act, the Court normally presumes that all Government functions have been done in a proper manner. This presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Court may presume existence of certain facts and one of the facts which Court can presume is that common course of business has been followed in particular cases. In this case, we fail to understand why the injury report was dated 23rd June, 2006 and not earlier. The injury report in all medical legal cases should be prepared immediately when the injured is admitted to hospital. In case the injury report is prepared on the basis of the Bed Head ticket then the primary evidence is the Bed Head ticket and the same must be proved. 29. In the present case, neither the investigating officer nor the prosecuting officer thought it fit to exhibit the Bed Head ticket or other record showing the treatment from the Tripura Sundari District hospital or the G.B. hospital. What is even more shocking is the so-called injury report which is dated 23rd June, 2006 does not tally with the statement of the witnesses or with the post mortem report. In this so-called injury report, there is no mention why the petitioner was referred to the G.B. hospital. There is no mention that the petitioner complained of pain in the head for the first time on the night of 31st may, 2006. These facts should have been brought on record. P.W. 8, Dr. Jayanta Chakraborty has found four injuries on the dead body of the deceased. We fail to understand how the doctor, TSD hospital could have missed out injury No.i), iii) and iv) and why the size of the injury No. ii) is totally different. These facts should have been brought on record. P.W. 8, Dr. Jayanta Chakraborty has found four injuries on the dead body of the deceased. We fail to understand how the doctor, TSD hospital could have missed out injury No.i), iii) and iv) and why the size of the injury No. ii) is totally different. Either the doctor at TSD hospital are totally incompetent or they did not perform their duties properly. A contusion which is 6.5 c.m. long and 4 c.m. wide cannot be missed. Assuming that such contusion wound had been missed on first examination, once the complainant had complained of headache then at least this injury should have been noticed. 30. At G.B. hospital, some scan of the brain must have been done. There must have been some examination by the doctors. No record has been produced from the G.B. hospital. If such record had been produced the doctor could have opined whether the injury on the head is a fresh injury or an old injury. 31. We are dealing here with a case where the specific defence of the accused is that the deceased fell in the hospital on the evening of 31st May, 2006 and received the injuries. The Public Prosecutor as well as the investigating officer even during the trial of the case could have called for the record from the G.B. hospital which could have been useful to determine the injuries. No record has been produced which clearly indicates that neither the investigating officer nor in fact the Public Prosecutor knew how to conduct a case of this magnitude. The doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination had opined that the death occurred only because of the head injury. Therefore, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the head injury was caused when the fight took place. The doctor from the TSD hospital has stated that on examination he did not find any injury on the head and for the first time, Mangal Khan’s complained of pain in the head on the evening of 31st May, 2006. The doctor stated this after going through the Bed Head ticket of Mangal Khan. We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor of the Court or the Judge of the trial Court did not deem it fit to retain the Bed Head ticket in Court. The doctor stated this after going through the Bed Head ticket of Mangal Khan. We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor of the Court or the Judge of the trial Court did not deem it fit to retain the Bed Head ticket in Court. At least, photocopy of the same could have been exhibited if nothing else. 32. Section 114 of the India Evidence Act relates to presumptions. Illustration (g) reads as follows:- “(g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;” 33. In the present case, the prosecution has withheld the evidence of the Bed head ticket from TSD hospital as well as G.B. hospital and in fact, the injury report produced was not proper and therefore, a presumption can arise that if the evidence had been produced it would have gone against the prosecution. 34. The respondents led evidence which indicates that Mangal Khan fell in the latrine of the TSD hospital on 31st May, 2006. It is urged by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. that this fact has not been proved by the evidence. This argument does not taken into consideration the fact that the accused is not pleading any exception. It is always for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused is to create a reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence is not foolproof, if a doubt is caste in the mind of the Court then the accused has to be given benefit of doubt. 35. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased died as a result of a head injury received in the fight. Therefore, none of the accused could have been convicted for causing the death of the deceased Mangal Khan. We may have been inclined to convict the accused for lesser offence of causing hurts etc., but with regard to the occurrence which took place, there is grave doubt in our mind as to who was the aggressor party. The evidence is so conflicting that we cannot say that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused persons who attacked the deceased. The possibility that Mangal Khan started the quarrel cannot be ruled out. The evidence is so conflicting that we cannot say that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused persons who attacked the deceased. The possibility that Mangal Khan started the quarrel cannot be ruled out. Since he did not die of a head injury the only injury proved was a minor lacerated wounds on his right eye lid. That could happen in any fight. Therefore, we feel that both the convict-accused deserve to be acquitted. 36. In view of the above discussion, we allow Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 set aside the Judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in S.T. 15 (ST/U) 2007 and acquit the accused. Criminal Revision Petition No.61 of 2008 is dismissed as being without any merit. 37. Send down the LCRs forthwith.