JUDGMENT : PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Amicus curiae assisting the Court as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 22.12.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1992, arising out of Siwan Town Police Station Case No. 245 of 1991 dated 2.11.1991. By the said judgment, appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, whereas appellants no. 2 Treeloki Patva and appellant no. 3 Brahma Patva have been convicted for the offence under sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and three years respectively. 3. The prosecution's case, lodged on the fardbeyan (exhibit 5/1) of the informant Deelip Kumar Patva before the Sub Inspector of Siwan Town Police Station on 2.11.1991 at 8 PM, in brief is that every year in the marriage season, the informant side used to sell vermilion pots etc. in front of the shop of Madhur Milan Hotel of one Sheoji Pradhan. However, on the fateful day, i.e., 2.11.1991, on the eve of festival 'Dhanterash', one Harinarain Patva forcibly occupied that very road side space and spread his shop for selling idols which was protested by his mother at about 7.30 PM on 2.11.1991. In the meantime, Shriram Patva (appellant no. 1) came to the informant's house and started hurling abusive language which was resisted by the informant side. Thereafter, Shriram Patva (appellant no. 1) returned to his house. However, he again reached there carrying sword in his hand and started threatening the informant's family members of dire consequences. This time, informant's father Bindeshwari Patva tried to overpower him but Shriram Patva managed to drag Bindeshwari Patva towards his (appellant no. 1) house, whereafter his brother Brahma Patva (appellant no. 3) carrying sword in his hand, Bishun Patva carrying Bamboo in his hand, Triloki Patva (appellant no. 2) armed with iron rod rushed to the spot and indulged in assaulting Bindeshwari Patva. In the meantime, Harinarain Patva, father of the appellants, also came to the spot and ordered to kill Bindeshwari Patva, whereafter, Shriram Patva (appellant no. 3) carrying sword in his hand, Bishun Patva carrying Bamboo in his hand, Triloki Patva (appellant no. 2) armed with iron rod rushed to the spot and indulged in assaulting Bindeshwari Patva. In the meantime, Harinarain Patva, father of the appellants, also came to the spot and ordered to kill Bindeshwari Patva, whereafter, Shriram Patva (appellant no. 1) pieced the sword into abdomen of Bindeshwari Patva as a result of which he fell down and succumbed to the injury at the spot. Meanwhile, Brahma Patva (appellant no. 3) hurled sword blow on the head of informant's mother. Treeloki Patva (appellant no. 2) assaulted his sister Kalawati on the head with iron rod, whereas informant and his brother Vijay were assaulted by Bishun Patva with Bamboo. Accused persons have also been alleged to be engaged in throwing bricks from their roof on the prosecution side causing them injuries. However, they fled away on arrival of muhalla people. 4. Police, after investigation submitted charge sheet, whereafter cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. It is not out of place to mention here that out of five accused persons named in the First Information Report, trial of accused Vishnu Patva was separated after framing of the charges on the ground of his being a minor. Hence, separating his trial, the Court proceeded against four accused persons and pronounced the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as indicated above which is under challenge in this appeal, except accused Harinarain Patva, who has been exonerated of the charges in the trial. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined, altogether, 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents in order to prove its case. PW 1 Gulabchand Prasad and PW 2 Triloki Nath are the seizure list witness with respect to blood soaked soil. PW 2 is also the witness to the inquest report. PW 3 Shakar Prasad is also witness to the inquest report. PW 4 Vijay Kumar Patva (son of the deceased), PW 6 Kalawati Kumari (daughter of the deceased), PW 7 Sursatiya Devi (widow of the deceased) and PW 8 Deelip Kumar Patva (informant and second son of deceased) have claimed to have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons. PW 5 Dr. PW 4 Vijay Kumar Patva (son of the deceased), PW 6 Kalawati Kumari (daughter of the deceased), PW 7 Sursatiya Devi (widow of the deceased) and PW 8 Deelip Kumar Patva (informant and second son of deceased) have claimed to have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons. PW 5 Dr. Suresh Prasad Sinha, posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Siwan, apart from examining the injured persons, namely, PWs. 4, 7 & 8, has also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bindeshwari Patva on 3.11.1991. Post mortem report as well as the injury reports are contained in exhibit nos. 4, 3, 3/1, 3/2 & 3/3 respectively. PW 6 is Kalawati Kumari, who happens to be the daughter of the deceased, whereas PW 7 Sursatiya Devi is the widow of the deceased and PW 8 Deelip Kumar Patva (second son of the deceased) is the informant of the case. PW 9 Rajkishore Singh is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case. He has supported the recording of fardbeyan (exhibit 5/1), institution of FIR (exhibit 6) and holding of inquest report (exhibit 7) and seizure of blood soaked earth (exhibit 8). 6. Statements of appellants were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the prosecution allegation and claimed their false implication stating that since they were protesting the undesirable visit of the police for informant's sister Kalawati and the protest was made by the accused persons, they have been roped in the instant case. Appellants Shriram Patva and Triloki Patva have taken plea of ali bi in their statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, appearing as learned Amicus curiae to assist the Court, while assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, submit that once major part of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the trial court in respect to two accused persons, namely, appellant no. 2 (Triloki Patva) and appellant no. 3 (Brahma Patva) and have been held not guilty of the charge under sections 302/34 of the IPC and further co-accused Harnarain Patva who is alleged to be an order giver has been acquitted, on the same set of facts, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence. 2 (Triloki Patva) and appellant no. 3 (Brahma Patva) and have been held not guilty of the charge under sections 302/34 of the IPC and further co-accused Harnarain Patva who is alleged to be an order giver has been acquitted, on the same set of facts, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence. In support of the submission, reference is made to paragraphs 13.1, 14 & 14.1 of an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of R. Jayapal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if separation of truth from falsehood is not feasible because of the two being inextricably mixed up and if the prosecution case has been found to be false or doubtful with respect to some of the accused persons on the same set of the evidence, appellants cannot be held guilty. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the place of occurrence has not been established and there is much variation in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He points out that as per PW 9, the IO of the case, the place of occurrence is in front of the house of Rajendra Agrawal, whereas PW 6 Kamlawati Kumari has stated that the occurrence took place in front of the house of the appellant Sriram Patva. Similarly, PW 8 the informant Dilip Kumar Patva has stated that the occurrence took place in front of the house of Rajendra Agrawal. Besides, prosecution witnesses are also not in unison with the manner of occurrence as there is a lot of variation in their evidence which itself goes to the root of the prosecution. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence of PW 5 Dr. Suresh Prasad Sah, who was then posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Siwan and conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bindeshwari Patva on 3.11.1991, does not support the prosecution case, as in the post mortem report none of the four injuries on the person of the deceased was found to be punctured, penetrating or piercing injury, whereas the doctor (PW 5) in his evidence recorded in paragraph 6 of deposition has opined that if sword point is used to inflict injury it would cause punctured or penetrating or piercing injury. 9. 9. It is also the case of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to establish the means of identification of the accused persons with their specific role in the crime when the same took place after sunset at 7.30 PM on 2.11.1991, i.e., the evening of a winter season. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that as per the prosecution's case occurrence took place on public street and a lot of people were gathered at the time of the occurrence on the eve of Dhanterash festival but not a single independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and only interested and related witnesses or the family members of the deceased, i.e., wife Sarswati Devi (PW 7), two sons Vijay Kumar Patva (PW 4) and Dilip Kumar Patva (PW 8) and daughter Kalawati Kumari (PW 6) have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that in absence of any corroboration from independent sources the testimony of interested witnesses, the Court should analyze and scrutinize the same with due care and caution before accepting or acting upon the same. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the means of identification of the accused persons. He submits that from the testimony of the witnesses it is apparent that there was a free fight between two groups as a result of which brick batting injuries had been caused to both sides. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that earlier version of the prosecution's case, which had been made by Vijay Kumar Patva (PW 4) and Kalawati Kumari (PW 6) before the police and recorded before fardbeyan of PW 8, have been deliberately withheld by the prosecution which creates doubt. The trial court also fails to take notice of the aforesaid fact. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the trial court has already discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after considering their evidence and the materials collected on the records during investigation as well as in course of the trial, has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the trial court has already discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after considering their evidence and the materials collected on the records during investigation as well as in course of the trial, has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. He further submits that the evidence of the injured witnesses find corroboration by the medical evidence and the place of occurrence has also been established and in such view of the matter the trial court has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22nd December, 1993. He further submits that the impugned judgment is a well considered judgment and the same is not liable to be reversed by this Court. 12. Having considered the rival submissions and meticulously evaluating and examining the evidence as well as on going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that the trial court has based its judgment on the evidence of the injured witnesses, i.e., PW 4 Bijay Kumar Patva, PW 6 Kamlawati Kumari and PW 7 Sarswati Devi and PW 8 Dilip Kumar Patva, who is the informant of the case as well as the medical evidence of PW 5, while passing the order of the judgment of conviction and sentence. 13. At first, I would like to discuss the evidence of the injured witnesses. PW 4 Vijay Kumar Patva is the son of the deceased and claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. While supporting the prosecution's case in his examination-in-chief he has stated that it was at 7.30 PM on 2.11.1991 at his house his father was talking with his mother regarding shop. Appellant no. 1 Sriram Patva was standing outside the house. In the meantime, his father came out of the house and asked him that why he was standing there, whereupon altercation ensued between them. Thereafter, Sriram Patva went to his house and returned there with a sword. Sriram Patva overpowered the victim and took him towards his house. Accused persons Triloki Patva, Brahma Patva, Bishnu Patva came there. Triloki was carrying rod, Bishnu was carrying bamboo and Brahma was carrying sword. Harinarayan Patva ordered to kill his father, whereafter Sriram Patva pierced sword to his father. Sriram Patva overpowered the victim and took him towards his house. Accused persons Triloki Patva, Brahma Patva, Bishnu Patva came there. Triloki was carrying rod, Bishnu was carrying bamboo and Brahma was carrying sword. Harinarayan Patva ordered to kill his father, whereafter Sriram Patva pierced sword to his father. PW 4 further states that he himself as well as his mother, brother Dilip and sister Kamlawati rushed to the spot to save him. Brahma assaulted his mother, he himself was assaulted by Bishnu with bamboo, whereas others were also assaulted by the accused persons. Brahma also assaulted his father. Triloki assaulted his sister with rod. His father died at the Darwaja of Rajendra Agrawal. On being cross examined by the defence, in paragraph 5 of his deposition, he has stated that his statement was recorded by the police and he had stated that there was street light at the spot and Brahma assaulted his father and brick batting had taken place between the parties for 5 to 10 minutes. In paragraph 6 he has stated that after his father (the deceased) fell down after getting injured towards the north of the house of co-accused Harinarain Patva, accused Sriram, Brahma, Bishnu, Triloki and Harinarain came there. He has further stated that when he along with PW 7, 6 & 8, his father was lying injured. Meaning thereby, none of these witnesses saw the actual assault on the deceased. In paragraph 7 of his evidence he has stated that no incident had taken place at his door on the date of incident and when he saw his father for the first time blood was oozing out from his chest. His father was lying dead on the ground at that moment and 50 to 60 persons assembled there. Police arrested Brahma, Bishnu and Harinarayan Patva on the spot. 14. Thus, on minute examination of the evidence of PW 4 it is apparent that his statement in the cross examination is quite contradictory and inconsistent with his statement given in examination-in-chief and thus he contradicted himself in his evidence and in view of the glaring contradiction in his evidence and the prosecution case, the evidence of PW 4 cannot be said to be reliable and convincing. 15. PW 6 Kamlawati Kumari, daughter of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution's case. 15. PW 6 Kamlawati Kumari, daughter of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution's case. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that appellant Sriram Patva was standing on the road in front of her house, when her father and mother were discussing in the house regarding the issue of installing of idols' shop by accused Harinarain Patva. In the meantime, her father came out, thereafter an altercation took place, whereupon, Sriram Patva brought sword from his house and dragged his father towards his house. She along with her mother and brother followed him. Thereafter, Harinarain came out, Brahma with sword, Triloki with rod, Bishnu with bamboo also came out of the house. Harinarain ordered and accused Sriram pierced sword in the stomach of her father. Triloki assaulted her with rod causing head injury, her mother was assaulted by Brahma causing sword injuries on her head and shoulder. Her brother was also assaulted by the accused persons. She has further stated that after sustaining injury her father had fell down, still accused persons assaulted him. He died on the spot. She has also stated that the police had recorded her statement and there was no darkness at the place of occurrence as street light was lit up at the time of commission of the occurrence. She has also identified the accused persons. To the contrary, on being cross examined by the defence in paragraph 5 of the deposition, she has stated that no occurrence had taken place at/near her house on the relevant day rather the same had taken place near the house of accused Harinarain Patva. Brick batting had also been opened by the accused side in which she as well as her mother and her father had sustained injuries, though she is not confident that her brothers had sustained injuries in the aforesaid brick batting. Brick batting had also been opened by the accused side in which she as well as her mother and her father had sustained injuries, though she is not confident that her brothers had sustained injuries in the aforesaid brick batting. In paragraph 6 thereof, she has stated that on the date of occurrence, police had recorded her statement but she has no remembrance of the fact stated by her to the police that at that time of occurrence whether (a) there was darkness or street light at the scene of crime (b) accused persons hurled assault on her father even after he fell down on sustaining injuries (c) her father had tried to overpower Sriram Patva (d) blood was oozing out from the body of her father when she saw her for the first time after the incident (e) number of people other than her family members sustained bricks injury (f) she sustained bricks injury. She has also expressed her inability to disclose the actual time of occurrence and the number of people assembled on the road at the time of brick batting. In paragraph 7 of the cross examination, she has stated that her father had fell down at the distance of about 2 Gaj (6 feet) from the house of accused Harinarain. 16. From the evidence of PW 6 it is apparent that her entire evidence in the cross examination are contrary and inconsistent to her earlier evidence given by her before the police during investigation. In view of this discrepancy and inconsistency, evidence deposed by PW 6 cannot be believed and relied upon safely. 17. Similarly, PW 7 Saraswati Devi, wife of the deceased, while supporting the prosecution's case in her examination-in-chief has stated that after a little exchange of words between her husband and the appellant Sriram Patva, the latter went to his house and house and immediately returned in front of her house with a sword in his hand and when her husband tried to overpower him, he dragged her husband in front of the house of Rajendra Agrawal. Thereafter, Brahma with sword, Triloki with rod, Bishnu with bamboo came there. Accused Harinarain ordered to kill him on which Brahma assaulted her on her head and the back with sword causing injuries. Accused persons also assaulted her daughter and sons. Appellant Sriram pierced sword in the abdomen of her husband. Thereafter, Brahma with sword, Triloki with rod, Bishnu with bamboo came there. Accused Harinarain ordered to kill him on which Brahma assaulted her on her head and the back with sword causing injuries. Accused persons also assaulted her daughter and sons. Appellant Sriram pierced sword in the abdomen of her husband. On hulla, the accused persons dispersed from the spot and started throwing bricks, stones etc on them from the roof of their house. Her husband died on the spot. Police came to the spot, witnessed her injury and recorded her statement. On being cross examined by the defence, PW 7 in her evidence contained in paragraph 5 of her deposition, states that no duel took place between her husband and the appellant Sriram Patva in front of the door of Sriram Patva, rather the act of capturing and piercing sword in the stomach of her husband by this appellant happened simultaneously. Her sons and daughter did not try to catch hold of the appellant Sriram Police arrived at the scene of occurrence within half an hour and arrested Brahma, Bishnu and Harinarain. In paragraph 7 of the deposition, she has stated that the brick batting had been opened by the accused persons after death of her husband. 18. From minute scrutiny of the evidence of PW 7 it is apparent that her evidence in the cross examination is in complete conflict with what she has stated before the police during investigation. Her statement regarding manner of occurrence also runs counter to the testimony of other witnesses. In view of such material contradiction it would not be safe to rely on her evidence. 19. PW 8 Dilip Kumar Patva, who is informant and another son of the deceased, while supporting the prosecution's case in his examination-in-chief, has stated that there was some dispute for installation of the shop between his father and accused Harinarain Patva. It is further submitted that when his father was discussing the same with his mother in the house, appellant Sriram was standing on the road in front of the house and his father questioned him, he became agitated and returned running with a sword in his hand. His father tried to capture him but the appellant managed to drag his father in front of the house of Rajendra Agrawal. His father tried to capture him but the appellant managed to drag his father in front of the house of Rajendra Agrawal. In the meantime, Harinarain empty handed, Bishnu with bamboo, Brahma with sword and Triloki with rod came from the house of appellant Sriram Patva. Accused Harinarain Patva ordered to kill his father, whereafter, appellant Sriram Patva pierced sword in the stomach of his father. Brahma, Bishnu and Triloki also assaulted his father. Accused persons started dragging him which was resisted by his mother, brother and sister. Thereafter, Brahma assaulted his mother with sword, Triloki assaulted his sister with rod and Bishnu assaulted his brother. Bishnu assaulted him at his left hand with bamboo. On hulla, accused persons rushed to the roof and indulged in stone pelting on them. His father died on the spot due to the assault. He further stated that the occurrence took place due to the fact that on the date of occurrence Harinarain installed his shop at the road side where his father used to lay shop. He has further stated that the police reached the place of occurrence and recorded his statement to which he put his signature on being read over to him. He has further stated that there was no darkness at the spot because of street light. In paragraph 4 of his deposition, he has stated that the statements of his mother and sister were also recorded by the police along with his statement in presence of muhalla people. At first his statement was recorded. Thereafter statement of his mother (PW 7) was recorded on which she put her thumb impression on being read over to her. He has further stated that after death of his father, his brother Vijay Kumar Patva had gone to the Police Station. Police had come to the place of occurrence in course of brick batting but it returned. 20. I find that there is improvement and quite contradiction in the earlier statement of PW 8 made by him before the police and his evidence adduced in the cross examination. His evidence is also in variance with the testimonies of other witnesses with regard to manner of occurrence discussed above, and as such his evidence cannot be held to be trustworthy and credible. 21. PW 9 Raj Kishore Singh is the IO of the case. His evidence is also in variance with the testimonies of other witnesses with regard to manner of occurrence discussed above, and as such his evidence cannot be held to be trustworthy and credible. 21. PW 9 Raj Kishore Singh is the IO of the case. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and proved the same as exhibit 5/1. He has further proved formal FIR written by Birendra Kumar Rajak, contained in exhibit 5/2. He has further stated that after registering the case he prepared inquest report and also recorded statements of witnesses and proved the inquest report as exhibit 7. He also stated that he seized the blood soaked soil from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list as exhibit 8. He further stated that he took the re-statement of PW 8, the informant Dilip Kumar Patva as well as the statements of other witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence and stated that the place of occurrence was near the house of Rajendra Agrawal which is near to the house of the appellant Sriram Patva. He has also stated that he prepared the injury reports as exhibits 9 series. In paragraph 11, he has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence on 2.11.1991 at 2.45 in the night and arrested three accused persons, namely, Harinarain Patva, Brahma Patva and Bishnu Patva. He has stated that he did not see injury on the person of the accused persons, except four injuries on the head, neck, left leg and left side of accused Bishnu Patva. In paragraph 14, he has stated that he did not find any blood stained clothes in the house of the informant. In paragraph 15, he has stated that the informant did not produce or stated about the means of identification. He has also stated in paragraph 16 of his deposition that he had recorded the statements of independent witnesses, namely, Parsuram Prasad, Tribhuwal Prasad, Basudeo Patva etc, though he did not enter them as witness in the charge sheet. In paragraph 19 thereof, he has categorically denied that PW 4 Vijay Kumar Patva had stated before him that there was street light at the spot though he had stated that the incident of brick batting had taken place in which his mother, father (the deceased) and brother had sustained injuries. In paragraph 19 thereof, he has categorically denied that PW 4 Vijay Kumar Patva had stated before him that there was street light at the spot though he had stated that the incident of brick batting had taken place in which his mother, father (the deceased) and brother had sustained injuries. In paragraph 20 he has denied that PW 6 Kamlawati had stated that there was street light on the spot at the relevant time. 22. It is worthwhile to notice that the IO in his cross-examination contained in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the deposition, has stated that on the eve of festival there was communal flare up in the township of Siwan and before coming to the place of occurrence, he heard the rumor that clashes between two groups were going on. From the evidence of the IO it is apparent that a lot of variation and improvement have been made by the prosecution witnesses in course of the trial by the so called eye witnesses. 23. PW 5 Dr. Suresh Prasad Sinha, who was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Siwan conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Bindeshwari Patva on 3.11.1991 and found following ante mortem injuries on his person:- (i)"An incised wound on occipital bone left side of the skull. Size 2" x 1/2" x bone deep. (ii) An incised wound on right parietal bone of skull. Size 3" x 1/2" x bone deep. (iii) An abrasion on right forearm. Size 1" x 1/4" and 1/2" x 1/4". (iv) An incised wound on right side of abdomen. Size 1" x 1/4" x cavity deep. On dissection thorax heart empty. Lung NAD." 24. Medical Evidence of PW 5, the doctor to some extent belies the prosecution case as in the post mortem report none of the four injuries on the person of the deceased was found to be punctured, penetrating or piercing injury, whereas the doctor (PW 5) in his evidence recorded in paragraph 6 of deposition has opined that if sword point is used to inflict injury it would cause punctured or penetrating or piercing injury on the person of the deceased. 25. 25. From perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses it is apparent that the witnesses reached the place of occurrence only after the deceased fell down after getting injured and as such it is very difficult to believe that they actually saw the assault on the deceased. The material contradiction between the prosecution case and the testimonies of the aforesaid eye witnesses and their testimonies inter se with regard to the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and the assault on the deceased render their evidence very doubtful and undependable. It is further apparent from the testimonies of the witnesses that almost all the witnesses did not say anything about the source of identification during their evidence before the police during investigation. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussions the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants, during the pendency of the appeal were released on bail by this Court. Hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 27. The criminal appeal stands allowed. 28. Let a copy of the first and last page of this judgment be handed over to learned Amicus curiae, who has given his valuable time to assist this Court, for needful.