JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.11.2017 in S.C.No.434 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant (A-1) aggrieved by the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in S.C.No.434/2015 dated 10.11.2017 convicting and sentencing the appellant as follows: S. No Provisions under which convicted Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 1 307 IPC Three years rigorous Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months 2 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year 2. The deceased accused Babu had gone to the residence of one Vijaya (P.W.-5) on 10.08.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. and had attempted to misbehave with her. This was informed by P.W.-5 to her husband and he complained to P.W.-2. The deceased accused Babu was called and he was advised not to repeat the mistake. At that point of time, the deceased Jeyakumar had scolded the deceased accused Babu that he is also born for a mother and has a sister and why he should have such a perverted mind and saying so, he had slapped the deceased accused Babu. Therefore, there was a previous enmity. On 12.08.2013, at about 8.00 p.m., the said deceased accused Babu came along with the other accused persons in a Maruti Car (M.O.-4). The deceased accused Babu pointed out the deceased Jeyakumar to the other accused persons and he caught hold of the hands of the deceased Jeyakumar and A-1 is said to have stabbed the deceased on the right and left side of the stomach and A-2 and A-3 are said to have held the legs of the deceased. When P.W.-1 attempted to prevent the occurrence, A-1 attacked him with knife resulting in P.W.-1 sustaining injuries in the right fore arm. Hearing the noise, Jeyapaul, David, Selvin, Anand, Rajendran (P.W.-2), Thangavel (P.W.-3) and Jeya (P.W.-5) went to the place of occurrence and they were also threatened with dire consequences. The deceased Jeyakumar ultimately died on 16.08.2013 at 1.30 a.m. in Thiraviam Orthopedic Hospital. 3. The injured (P.W.-1) was taken to the Thiraviam Hospital at about 10.00 p.m. along with the deceased. Hearing the noise, Jeyapaul, David, Selvin, Anand, Rajendran (P.W.-2), Thangavel (P.W.-3) and Jeya (P.W.-5) went to the place of occurrence and they were also threatened with dire consequences. The deceased Jeyakumar ultimately died on 16.08.2013 at 1.30 a.m. in Thiraviam Orthopedic Hospital. 3. The injured (P.W.-1) was taken to the Thiraviam Hospital at about 10.00 p.m. along with the deceased. He was treated in the hospital and on 13.08.2013, at about 12.15 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police of Koodankulam Police Station (P.W.-14) came to the hospital and took a statement from P.W.-1 in the hospital and reduced the same into a complaint (Ex.P-1). Based on the said complaint, an FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered at about 2.00 a.m. in Crime No.208/2013 for offence under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. He also collected the dress materials (M.O.-2 and M.O.-3) that were worn by the deceased Jeyakumar and it was sent under Form 95 to the Court. 4. The Inspector of Police (P.W.-15) took up the investigation and went to the hospital at about 3.00 a.m. and recorded the statement of P.W.-1. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence, at about 6.00 a.m. and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared the observation Mahazar (Ex.P-2) and the rough sketch (Ex.P-19). He also collected the material objects in the scene of occurrence. 5. The Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused persons at about 9.00 a.m. and based on the confession given by the appellant (A-1), the knife (M.O.-1) was recovered in the presence of P.W.-4. The accused persons were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court and they were remanded to judicial custody. The material objects recovered were sent to the Court. 6. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the Thiraviam Government Hospital and he took the statement of the deceased Jeyakumar (Ex.P-20) and he explained the entire incident. On 16.08.2013, at about 5.00 a.m., he got the news that the deceased Jeyakumar died early in the morning at 1.35 a.m. and he altered the FIR through alteration report (Ex.P-21). He went to the hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 6.30 to 8.30 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-22). The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam at Nagercoil through the Head Constable (P.W.-12) with a requisition for conducting a postmortem. He went to the hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 6.30 to 8.30 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-22). The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Asaripallam at Nagercoil through the Head Constable (P.W.-12) with a requisition for conducting a postmortem. He also proceeded to arrest the other accused persons and based on their confession, made recoveries. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of all the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and collected the postmortem certificate (Ex.P-17) and the serological report (Ex.P-12), after recording the statement of the Doctors. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid on 26.09.2013 against four accused persons (one Babu, who was also an accused, died when the investigation was going on) before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. 7. The case was committed to the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the trial Court, after furnishing the final report and the documents relied upon by the prosecution to the accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C., framed the following charges: S. Nos. Penal Provisions Accused 1 147 IPC A1 to A4 2 341 IPC A1 to A4 3 294(b) IPC A1 to A4 4 302 IPC A1 5 302 r/w 149 IPC A2 to A4 6 307 IPC A1 7 307 r/w 149 IPC A2 to A4 8 506(ii) A1 to A4 8. The prosecution examined P.W.-1 to P.W.-15 and marked Ex.P-1 to P.W.-24 and exhibited M.O.-1 to M.O.-4. A-3 had examined D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 and Ex.D-1 to D.-4 were marked. 9. The trial Court had put all the incriminating materials collected during the course of trial by way of questioning the accused persons under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was denied as false. 10. The trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A-1 and proceeded to convict and sentence him in the manner stated supra. A-2 to A-4 were acquitted from all the charges. 11. Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made the following submissions: The prosecution had examined P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 as eyewitnesses in this case. A-2 to A-4 were acquitted from all the charges. 11. Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made the following submissions: The prosecution had examined P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 as eyewitnesses in this case. P.W.-2 had turned hostile and the other witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 could not have seen the incident. In this case, admittedly, A-3 Babu had given a complaint against the deceased and P.W.-1 and an FIR (Ex.P-23) came to be registered in Crime No.210/2013 before the same police station for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) IPC on 14.08.2013 at 10.00 p.m. A statement was also taken from him from the hospital, in which, he was taking treatment and that was not produced by the prosecution. The counter case was not investigated along with the FIR that was registered based on the complaint given by P.W.-1 and that itself caused a serious doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case. The Accident Register (Ex.D-2) of A-3, who was admitted at the Government Hospital, Asaripallam, shows the injuries sustained by him, when he was attacked with stone and knife and he was taking treatment for seven days as inpatient till 19.08.2013 and he was treated by (D.W-1) Doctor. The result of this case is not known and it was closed by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P-24) on the ground that cognizance cannot be taken, since it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.-15, who is the Investigating Officer, was not even able to tell before the Court regarding the result of the investigation in Crime No.210/2013 and that itself shows that the counter case was not properly investigated and there was no explanation for the injuries sustained by A-3. In the present case, as per the evidence of the witnesses, the incident is said to have taken place at 8.00 p.m. However, in the FIR, it is mentioned as 9.30 p.m. The deceased is said to have stabbed by A-1 and P.W.-1 is said to have been attacked in his right fore arm. If this incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m., then, the counter case, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. improbablises the very incident, since it was P.W.-1, who attacked A-3 along with the deceased. If this incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m., then, the counter case, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. improbablises the very incident, since it was P.W.-1, who attacked A-3 along with the deceased. In this case, there is a delay in registering the FIR, since the incident took place at 8.00 p.m. on 12.08.2013 and the FIR was only registered at 2.00 a.m. on 13.08.2013 and there is no explanation for the delay. The registration of the counter case was intentionally delayed for nearly two days and the FIR reached the Magistrate with six days delay. There were bloodstained earth at two places and the police had collected it only from one place and bloodstained earth was not taken from the other place near Subbammal's house. The evidence of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 are contradicting each other and all the three witnesses cannot be believed to be eyewitnesses in this case. The so called statement that was recorded from the deceased is a concocted document and there is nothing to show that the Investigating Officer went to the hospital and recorded the statement and the Doctor, (P.W.-8) who treated the deceased, does not even say that P.W.-15 came to the hospital for the purpose of taking the statement of the deceased. The prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted from all charges. 12….. 13. Per contra, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, made the following submissions: P.W.-1 is an injured witness and he clearly describes the incident. He also explained the circumstances, under which, A-3 was injured and therefore, in the present case, no attempt was made to conceal the injury of A-3. In the same manner, P.W.-7 has also explained clearly about the incident and there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of P.W.-8 Doctor clearly corroborates the incident described by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The motive behind the crime has been clearly spoken by P.W.-2 and P.W.-5. The statement recorded by P.W.-14 from the deceased clearly explains the cause of death and the entire incident and the same becomes a relevant fact under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as a dying declaration. The investigation with regard to the counter case ultimately ended in the case being closed as 'Mistake of Fact', after investigation. The statement recorded by P.W.-14 from the deceased clearly explains the cause of death and the entire incident and the same becomes a relevant fact under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as a dying declaration. The investigation with regard to the counter case ultimately ended in the case being closed as 'Mistake of Fact', after investigation. Therefore, the counter case will not have any impact over the present case on hand. The prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the same has been properly appreciated and the Court below has found that A-1 has committed the crime based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same and this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court. 15. The case of the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 and therefore, we will start assessing the case from the version given by the eyewitnesses. 16. P.W.-1, in his chief examination, has described the incident and the manner, in which, the deceased and he were attacked by A-1. The time at which the incident had taken place is spoken by P.W.-1 in the following manner: “TAMIL” 17. It is seen from the above statement that he was clear with regard to the fact that the incident had taken place at 8.00 p.m. and not at 9.30 p.m. as stated in the complaint. The FIR came to be registered in this case in Crime No.208/2013 based on the statement given by P.W.-1 to P.W.-14 on 13.08.2013 at 2.00 a.m. There is nothing to show that this FIR reached the Magistrate Court and no police has been examined to show that this FIR was carried to the Magistrate Court. 18. The counter case that was given by A-3 against the deceased Jeyakumar and P.W.-1 was registered in Crime No.210/2013 (Ex.P-23) on 14.08.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. This FIR came to be registered based on the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police of Koodankulam Police Station from A-3, who was admitted at Asaripallam Government Hospital. 18. The counter case that was given by A-3 against the deceased Jeyakumar and P.W.-1 was registered in Crime No.210/2013 (Ex.P-23) on 14.08.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. This FIR came to be registered based on the statement recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police of Koodankulam Police Station from A-3, who was admitted at Asaripallam Government Hospital. The incident in question had taken place on 12.08.2013 at 9.30 p.m. It is the evidence of P.W.-1 that after the incident, A-3 fell down and sustained injuries. If the incident had really taken place at 8.00 p.m., as spoken by P.W.-1, there was no scope for the incident that took place at 9.30 p.m. according to the counter case, wherein, an allegation has been made that A-3 was attacked with brick and knife by the deceased and P.W.-1. The probability of the incident having taken place at 8.00 p.m. is also spoken by P.W.-3 and P.W.-7. 19. As per 588(A) of the Police Standing Order, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate both the case and counter and lay a final report. This becomes very important, since the prosecution must find out as to who were the real aggressors. In the present case, even though P.W.-15 states that the counter case was closed as 'Mistake of Fact', the final report was not filed and what is found in Ex.P-24 is only the endorsement of the Court refusing to take cognizance of the final report on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there seems to be no investigation in the counter case. As a result of which, the very genesis of the case of the prosecution becomes questionable. If only the counter case had been properly investigated and final report was filed, the Investigating Officer would have had the opportunity to assess as to which incident was true and who were the real aggressors. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon some judgments in this regard: 20.1. This Court, in Ramalingam v. State. Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 493, has held as follows: "16. Apart from that, during cross-examination, P.W.-12 has simply stated that he referred the case in Crime No.44/2001 as 'mistake of fact'. This Court, in Ramalingam v. State. Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 493, has held as follows: "16. Apart from that, during cross-examination, P.W.-12 has simply stated that he referred the case in Crime No.44/2001 as 'mistake of fact'. He has not given any reason as to why he referred the same as 'mistake of fact'. He has not even produced the notice served on the Accused/appellant. The materials collected during the course of investigation of the counter case have been produced before this Court. It is for this Court to adjudicate upon as to which version, namely, whether the version projected by the prosecution or that of the Accused is true. But, in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to place all the materials before the Court and so this Court is not in a position to adjudicate upon as to who are the aggressors in this case. 17. In view of all the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands and the same has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. Every attempt has been made to suppress the counter case and the material collected during the investigation of the same. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the conviction of the Accused cannot be sustained." 20.2. This Court, in Jayaraman and others v. State rep. by the Inspector of police, Kandli Police Station reported in 2017 (1) MWN (Cr.) 492 (DB), has held as follows: "9. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on the land, which is under dispute. It is the positive case of the prosecution that all the seven accused were already there in the field engaging in their Agricultural work. It is also the positive case of the prosecution that the prosecution party, including the deceased, had gone to the said field. The purpose of going over there was questioned by the Accused in respect of the occurrence which had taken place on the previous day. This would go to show that the Accused party place would not have intercepted the arrival of the Prosecution party to the place of occurrence at all. The very fact that the prosecution party had gone to the place of occurrence would go to show that they were the aggressors. This would go to show that the Accused party place would not have intercepted the arrival of the Prosecution party to the place of occurrence at all. The very fact that the prosecution party had gone to the place of occurrence would go to show that they were the aggressors. It is also admitted that the Accused 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 had sustained injuries in the same occurrence. A perusal of the evidence of the Doctor and the Medical record would go to show that the injuries were all serious injuries on vital parts of the bodies of these Accused. But unfortunately, there was no investigation at all done in respect of those injuries. The injuries also have not been explained away by the prosecution. To a specific question posed to the Investigating Officer as to what had happened to the counter case in Crime No.190 of 2008, he has stated that the records were found misplaced. He has not at all stated that the said case was investigated. Even the Sub-Inspector, who registered the case, has not come forward to state that he registered the case. All these facts would go to show that the Investigating Officer had taken partisan attitude only to investigate the case of the prosecution and no efforts whatsoever was taken by him to find out the death and the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the occurrence. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others, etc. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , wherein in an identical situation, taking note of the fact that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the Accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "11. .... v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , wherein in an identical situation, taking note of the fact that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by the Accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "11. .... It seems to us that in a Murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the Accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has, thus, not presented the true version: (2) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the Accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) That in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the Accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the Accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one......" Applying the same yardstick in the present case, we have to necessarily hold that though P.Ws.1 to 3 and 10 are injured eyewitnesses, since they have not whispered anything about the injuries sustained by the accused, we cannot give full credence to their evidences. There is no other independent witness also. As we have already concluded there was no investigation done in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused and the Investigating Officer had investigated the case of the prosecution party alone. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Accused are entitled for acquittal, more particularly because the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. In such view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the Accused are entitled for acquittal." 21. It is clear from the above judgments that it is the duty of the prosecution to investigate the counter case and explain the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence, failing which, the very genesis of the case will become questionable. It is clear from the above judgments that it is the duty of the prosecution to investigate the counter case and explain the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence, failing which, the very genesis of the case will become questionable. 22. In the present case, P.W.-15 has merely said that the counter case was closed as 'mistake of fact'. There was no material to support this version given by P.W.-15. Therefore, the Court did not have an opportunity to ascertain, which version is true and the trial Court was kept in dark with regard to the counter case. Therefore, even though an incident had taken place, the evidence of P.W.-1, when analyzed with the counter case, shows that the incident had not happened in the manner explained by P.W.-1. It will be relevant to take note of the injuries sustained by A-3 as spoken by D.W.-1 Doctor. Ex.D-2 is the Accident Register that was marked on the side of A-3 and D-3 is the wound certificate that was marked on the side of A-3. The injuries as found in Ex.D-2 is extracted hereunder: "1. 4 x 2 cm abrasion in dorsal aspect of Left Hand 2. 6 x 3 cm abrasion in right thumb. 3. 3 x 3 cm abrasion in forehead." 23. The wound certificate reveals the fact that A-3 was admitted in the hospital on 12.08.2013 and he was discharged only on 19.08.2013 and the wound certificate also reiterates the same injuries. 24. The evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.-15 in that regard is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 25. It is also seen in this case that the FIR had reached the Magistrate Court as per the judgment of the trial Court on 13.08.2013 at 5.35 p.m. and there is nearly a delay of 5½ hrs. 26. This Court will proceed to assess the evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-7. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.-3 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 26.1. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.-7 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” The above evidence of PW.-3 and P.W.-7 clearly shows that there is a contradiction with regard to the eyewitnesses, who were actually present in the scene of occurrence. 27. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.-3 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 26.1. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.-7 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” The above evidence of PW.-3 and P.W.-7 clearly shows that there is a contradiction with regard to the eyewitnesses, who were actually present in the scene of occurrence. 27. The evidence of the eyewitnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, does not inspire the confidence of this Court and it is clear that the incident has not taken place in the manner in which the prosecution has attempted to project the same. Therefore, necessarily this Court has to look for some corroboration, since these witnesses are neither reliable nor unreliable. 28. P.W.-7 is the wife of the deceased Jeyakumar. She has made the following statement at the time of giving evidence: “TAMIL” 29. It is clear from the above evidence that one Anand had accompanied the injured to the hospital and he was cited as an eyewitness in the case, but not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution does not explain as to why this material witness has not been examined in this case. 30. The reliance placed by the prosecution on the so called statement (Ex.P-20) that was recorded from the deceased also becomes highly doubtful, since P.W.-8, who is the Doctor, who treated the deceased, has stated that he is not aware about the visit of P.W.-15 to the hospital. The relevant portion in the evidence is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 31. Therefore, the so called statement that was recorded by P.W.-15 and which is sought to be relied upon as a dying declaration also becomes highly doubtful. 32. There is yet another fact that requires consideration. Bloodstained earth were found in two places. One is the place of occurrence ie., in front of the house of Thangavel (P.W.-3) and the other was in front of the house of Subbammal, who was not examined. When P.W.-15 was examined on this aspect, he stated as follows: “TAMIL” 33. It is seen that M.O.-1 knife was not sent for chemical analysis. When P.W.-15 was questioned regarding the same, he gave the following reply: “TAMIL” 34. In the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution had intentionally concealed the genesis of the case by not investigating the counter case. It is seen that M.O.-1 knife was not sent for chemical analysis. When P.W.-15 was questioned regarding the same, he gave the following reply: “TAMIL” 34. In the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution had intentionally concealed the genesis of the case by not investigating the counter case. There is absolutely no explanation for the injuries sustained by A-3 and the FIR reveals the fact that it was the deceased and P.W.-1, who had caused the injury. That part, the evidence of the witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 do not inspire the confidence of this Court and the other evidence that has been collected by the prosecution does not corroborate the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, it will not be safe to convict the appellant only based on the evidence of these witnesses. The trial Court had given the benefit of doubt to A-2 to A-4 and in the considered view of this Court, the benefit of doubt must also be given to the appellant. The entire motive in this case is only attributed against the deceased accused Babu and there was no motive attributed as against the appellant. The Investigating Officer, by not properly investigating the counter case and finding out the real truth in this case, has failed in his duty in not following the mandate of Police Standing Order 588(A). Looking at the case from any angle, this Court is not convinced that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. 35. In view of the above finding, we are convinced that the judgment of the trial Court made in S.C.No.434/2015, dated 10.11.2017 requires interference. 36. In the result, the judgment made in S.C.No.434/2015 dated 10.11.2017, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is hereby set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from all charges. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated and fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.