Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 313 (GAU)

Suchendra Das v. State of Assam

2021-03-24

MIR ALFAZ ALI, SUMAN SHYAM

body2021
JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. All these three criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai in Sessions Case No. 74(N)/2017 whereby, each of the appellants have been convicted under section 302/201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 302, IPC. For the offence under section 201, IPC the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 6,000 each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in addition. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. We have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 132/2019, Ms. B. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal(J) No. 32/2019 and Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 314/2019. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has appeared on behalf of the State in all the three appeals. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the victim Nirjala Das, aged about 41 years, went missing on 12.7.2017 after she had gone to No. 1 Hatikhuli Rubber Garden to collect firewood. When the villagers were searching for her on the next day, i.e., 13.7.2017, they saw a newly dug up pit covered by soil and informed the Lumding Police Station. The police had arrived at the spot along with the Executive Magistrate, dug up the pit and took out the dead body of a woman (victim) who was later identified by the son of the victim. 4. The husband of the victim, Sri Gunadhar Das, had gone to Kolkata at that time but immediately upon receipt of information about his wife, he returned back to Lumding and lodged an ejahar with the Officer In-Charge of Lumding Police Station on 14.7.2017. In the ejahar dated 14.7.2017, the informant had also mentioned that he suspected that some unknown miscreants might have killed his wife and buried her in the hole. 5. In the ejahar dated 14.7.2017, the informant had also mentioned that he suspected that some unknown miscreants might have killed his wife and buried her in the hole. 5. It appears from the materials on record that upon receipt of information about the incident on 13.7.2017, G.D. Entry No. 296 was made in the Lumding Police Station and thereafter, the police had arrived at the spot and exhumed the body of the victim from a pit in presence of an Executive Magistrate. The ejahar was lodged on the next day, i.e., 14.7.2017 by the husband of the informant. Based on the ejahar dated 14.7.2017, Lumding P.S. Case No. 120/2017 was registered and the police took up the matter for investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. had recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses, sent the body for post mortem and thereafter, submitted charge sheet against four accused-persons. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. 6. There is no eye witness in this case and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the murder charge, the prosecution side had examined 10 witnesses. 7. In their statements recorded under section 313, Cr.PC the accused-persons had denied all the allegations brought against them. During trial, the defence side had also adduced evidence by examining three witnesses. 8. PW-1, Gunadhar Das, is the husband of the victim and is also the informant in this case. According to PW-1, the occurrence took place on 12.7.2017 when he was at Kolkata. Upon receipt of information from his son that his mother went to the jungle and had not returned till then, he immediately returned back to Lumding on the following day and found his wife's dead body at the Lumding Police Station. PW-1 has stated that he had found accused-Chandan Das at the Police Station but he could not say how his wife had died as the cause of her death was not known. This witness had deposed that he had lodged the ejahar on the following day and Ext-1 was the ejahar with his signature in it. 9. PW-2, Garga Mohan Das, was the Circle Officer of Lanka Revenue Circle, who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext-2). 10. This witness had deposed that he had lodged the ejahar on the following day and Ext-1 was the ejahar with his signature in it. 9. PW-2, Garga Mohan Das, was the Circle Officer of Lanka Revenue Circle, who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext-2). 10. PW-3, Jaharlal Das, is known to the informant and the deceased and he has deposed that the occurrence took place on 12.7.2017. On that day, at about 8.00 p.m. he had received information about the victim going missing when she went to the forest for collecting firewood. Then, he, along with his son Pipul Das, went to the house of the informant along with other villagers and thereafter they searched for the victim but did not find her. On the next morning, the villagers again searched for the victim in the forest area of Rubber Bagan when they found a newly filled up plot of land where mustard seeds were spread. They also found an empty packet of turmeric powder, and an empty packet of salt of Patanjali brand. PW-1 has stated that he then informed the police of Lumding Police Station whereafter, they came immediately to the place. On arrival of the police, the Circle Officer of Lanka also came there and many more local people assembled. With the assistance of a sweeper the dead body was exhumed from the pit. At that time, the accused-persons were also present on the spot. The dead body was then sent to Nagaon Civil Hospital for post mortem and he also accompanied the body. On 15.7.2017, police seized a “dao” from the house of Chandann Das on the basis of his statement. During his cross-examination PW-3 has stated that the seized articles were not seized by the police in his presence and he had only heard about the seizure of the “dao” from others. 11. PW-4, Nivas Das, has deposed to the effect that on the day of the occurrence he had heard that the wife of the informant went missing when she went to the Rubber Bagan for collecting firewood. The villagers searched for her and found a newly dug up plot of land in the Rubber Bagan and informed the police. Police came to the place and thereafter, dug up the land where he saw the dead body of deceased-Nirjala. The villagers searched for her and found a newly dug up plot of land in the Rubber Bagan and informed the police. Police came to the place and thereafter, dug up the land where he saw the dead body of deceased-Nirjala. Along with the deadbody one empty packet of salt, one packet of turmeric, one pair of sleeper, empty plastic bottle (half burned), one Saree and a Petticoat, in partially burned condition, were also found. Police seized all the articles after preparing a seizure list wherein he had put his signature. During his cross-examination, PW-4 has denied any knowledge as to when and who had put the dead body inside the ditch. This witness has also stated that about 100 villagers and the police were present at the time of recovery of the dead body. 12. PW-5, Nirmal Das, is the son of the victim and he has stated that his mother had gone to the Rubber Bagan for collecting firewood whereafter, she went missing. The villagers searched for her but could not find her on that day. The next day, deadbody of his mother was recovered by police with the help of villagers from Rubber Bagan by digging a pit. Circle Officer had conducted inquest in his presence and he had put his signature in the inquest report Ext-2. 13. PW-6, Prahlad Das, is the VDP Secretary and is also a resident of the same locality. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence the wife of the informant went missing when she had gone to the Rubber Bagan for collecting firewood. On being informed by the son of the victim, villagers tried to search her out but could not find her on that day. The next morning, the villagers again went searching for her in the forest area of Rubber Bagan when they found a newly filled in portion of earth. The police was informed and thereafter, the dead body was dug out from the said plot of land along with a plastic bottle, one pair of sleeper, some burnt cloths, one empty packet of turmeric and one empty packet of salt. PW-6 has stated that he saw the dead body which was in naked condition. The police seized the articles vide Ext-8 (seizure list) wherein he had put his signature. PW-6 has stated that he saw the dead body which was in naked condition. The police seized the articles vide Ext-8 (seizure list) wherein he had put his signature. This witness has further stated that on the next day, accused-Sachindra was brought to the Police Station wherein, he had shown the spot and described how he took the victim there. The accused-Sachindra Das had also narrated how he had perpetuated the offence. 14. PW-7, Sudhir Das, has also deposed on similar lines and has stated that the dead body was dug out from the newly filled up portion of the earth. Likewise, PW-8, Hiralal Chauhan, has stated that the dead body of the informant's wife was dug out from the newly filled up portion of earth inside the forest by the police in presence of the Circle Officer. 15. The post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Lalit Chandra Nath, who was working as the Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer at the B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon on 14.7.2017. According to the post mortem report (Ext-10), the following injuries were found in the body of the deceased and the opinion leading to the cause of death has also been mentioned therein:- “During examination I found- (1) Whole body is swollen. (2) Multiple blebs are present all over the body. (3) Peeling of skin on touch all body. (4) Foul smelling and the body fluids coming out from many parts of the body. (5) All hair of the scalp is degloving on holding of hair from scalp due to decompose. (6) Chest wall is swollen with multiple bled with loss of skin. (7) There was fracture on hyoid bone. (6) Abdomen wall is distended swollen with multiple blebs with loss of skin. (9) Whole face is swollen and multiple areas of loss of skin. (10) Organs of generation swollen skin with laps and short of external genital and parital parts. (11) Time since death approximately more than 3 days. In my opinion, the cause of death could not be detected due to decomposition of whole body and viscera's also could not be kept due to soft and friable for FSL test.” 16. Sri Ananta Ram Barman is the I.O. in this case who had conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against the four accused-persons. The I.O. was examined as PW-10. Sri Ananta Ram Barman is the I.O. in this case who had conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against the four accused-persons. The I.O. was examined as PW-10. The I.O. has confirmed that on 13.7.2017, while he was working as an attached Officer in the Lumding Police Station, the V.D.P. Secretary of No. 1 Hatikhuli Gaon, i.e., PW-6, arrived at the Police Station at about 8.30 a.m. and informed that one lady from his village, viz., Nirjala Das, went missing yesterday when she went to the forest to collect firewood and on search by the public, a newly dug up spot in the jungle was found wherein the dead body was suspected to be buried. On receipt of such information, G.D. Entry No. 296 dated 13.7.2017 was made and thereafter, the PW-10, on being directed to investigate the matter, went to the place of occurrence and saw that there was a newly dug up place. At that time, the Additional S.P. and Circle Officer along with a doctor of Lumding F.R.U. also arrived at the place of occurrence. As per the direction of the Circle Officer, Lanka, the place was dug up whereafter, the deadbody of the victim was exhumed. The dead body was identified by the victim's son PW-5. PW-10 has also confirmed that from the spot, an empty packet of turmeric, an empty packet of salt, one pair of slipper, and empty plastic bottle, a piece of saree (red and blue coloured) which was partially burned, a piece of petticoat, also in partially burnt condition, were recovered. He then seized the articles in presence of the witnesses by preparing a seizure-list and had also recorded the statement of witnesses. The Circle Officer, Lanka had conducted inquest over the deadbody whereafter, the same was forwarded to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon for post mortem. PW-10 has also stated that on day, i.e., 13.7.2017, at about 2.30 p.m., the informant (husband of the victim), had lodged a written ejahar in the Lumding Police Station and that he had recorded the statement of the informant. 17. PW-10 has further deposed that on that day, the Additional S.P., Hojai had caiied for a sniffer dog to find out the culprit and he, along with the Additional S.P. and Circle Officer, Lanka went together to the place of occurrence. 17. PW-10 has further deposed that on that day, the Additional S.P., Hojai had caiied for a sniffer dog to find out the culprit and he, along with the Additional S.P. and Circle Officer, Lanka went together to the place of occurrence. On 15.7.2017, on secret information, he had apprehended five accused-persons, viz., Chandan Das, Mintu Das, Botai Das, Monilal Das and one Suchendra Das. According to PW-10, the accused-persons had confessed their guilt during interrogation. 18. PW-10 has deposed that the accused, viz., Suchendra Das had confessed that on 12.7.2017 at around 10.30 a.m. he went to the shop of informant Gunadhar Das to purchase tobacco but the shop was closed. Since he came to know that the wife of the informant (victim) went towards Rubber Bagan just a few minutes ago, he also proceeded towards Rubber Bagan. On reaching there, he saw the victim collecting firewood and accused Monilal was talking to her. A moment later, accused-Chandan Das also came and joined them. After sometime both the accused-persons took the victim inside the jungle. He had also followed them. According to the accused, he had seen the other co-accused-Chandan Das committing sexual intercourse with the victim and after him, accused Monilal had also done the same. Later on, Suchendra Das had himself committed sexual intercourse with the victim. After sometime accused-Sudip Das arrived at the place of occurrence and committed rape upon the victim. Then she became senseless and unconscious. After that accused-Chandan Das had asked the other accused to watch for the people and he went to his house and brought a “dao”, a packet of salt and turmeric powder and thereafter, strangulated the victim till her death. After that Chandan Das had dug out a pit where she was buried. 19. According to PW-10, the confession of accused-Suchendra Das was videographed and a compact disc (CD) was prepared which was submitted by him along with the Case Diary. PW-10 has also stated that after arresting the accused-persons he brought them before the court with a prayer to remand them for another 10 days which was granted for a period of 5 days. On 16.7.2017 he again interrogated accused Chandan Das and during his examination this accused had also confessed his guilt and agreed to lead the police to the recovery of the “dao” USed in committing the offence. On 16.7.2017 he again interrogated accused Chandan Das and during his examination this accused had also confessed his guilt and agreed to lead the police to the recovery of the “dao” USed in committing the offence. Accordingly, the PW-10 along with the O/C and other staff proceeded to the house of accused Chandan Das on being led by him and seized the “dao” which was handed over to the I.O in presence of witnesses. PW-10 has stated that he has seized the dab. 20. According to PW-10, the accused-Sudip Das had also confessed his guilt during his interrogation in the Police Station and on the same day the said accused was produced before the Magistrate. Finally, on completion of investigation charge sheet was prepared against the four accused-persons whereas accused-Mintu Das and Botai Das were not sent up for trial due to want of evidence against them. 21. As noted above, the defence side had examined three witnesses. DW-. 1, Suchendra Das, is one of the accused and in his deposition he had stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 12.7.2017 he was selling vegetables and DW-2, Sujan Das, who is also a vegetable seller, was present there. DW-1 has stated that his right hand was broken in an accident that took place 16 years back as a result of which he is unable to use that harid : This witness had denied any knowledge as regards the incident leading to the death of the wife of the informant. 22. DW-2, Sujan Das, has corroborated the evidence of DW-1 and has stated that on the date of occurrence he was in the market for selling vegetables and the accused-Suchendra Das was also present with him selling vegetable in the market from 8.00 a.m. in the morning till about 8.30 p.m. in the evening. Thereafter, both of them returned home at 8/9 p.m. 23. Similarly, DW-3, Chandan Das, another co-accused in this case has also deposed that on 12.7.2017 he was busy doing his business of selling “chanachur” in front of Swami Vivekananada School at Lumdirig Town. On that day he returned home at 8.30 p.m. and came to know that the wife of the informant was missing. Similarly, DW-3, Chandan Das, another co-accused in this case has also deposed that on 12.7.2017 he was busy doing his business of selling “chanachur” in front of Swami Vivekananada School at Lumdirig Town. On that day he returned home at 8.30 p.m. and came to know that the wife of the informant was missing. This witness has stated that he was assisting the people to dig out the dead body of the victim and the gave a plastic to wrap the dead body after it was dug out. During their cross-examination, the testimony of DWs-1, 2 and 3 could not be shaken. 24. From a threadbare analysis of the materials brought on record; it could be seen that the prosecution has basically relied upon the extra judicial confession, allegedly made by the accused-persons, while in police custody, admitting to their guilt. It has also been projected that a “dao” was recovered by the police on being led by one of the accused viz., Chandan Das. Taking note of such materials brought on record including a CD of the videography showing the confession of one of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the four appellants. 25. Insofar as the extra judicial confession of the accused-persons is concerned, we find from the testimony of the I.O. (PW-10) that the accused-Suchendra Das was in police custody when he had made the alleged confession to the police. Such extra judicial confession was also made during the course of investigation of the case by the police. We find from the record that the learned trial court has relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused to the police and convicted the appellants. The relevant observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:- “Correct it is, extra judicial confession is a confession made out of court, and not as a part of a judicial examination or investigation. Such a confession must be corroborated by some other proof of the corpus delicti, or else it is insufficient to warrant a conviction. It may be made either to the police or to any other person other than judges or magistrate. If voluntary can be relied upon by the court, along with other evidence, in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact.” 26. It may be made either to the police or to any other person other than judges or magistrate. If voluntary can be relied upon by the court, along with other evidence, in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact.” 26. From the above, it would be evident that the learned trial court was of the view that the extra judicial confession of the accused made to the police while in the police custody was admissible as evidence and could be proved against the accused. 27. In the impugned judgment and order dated 17.1.2019 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the confession made by the accused was not only in presence of police but also before the Circle Officer (PW-2) which had led to the discovery of facts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also held that the Compact Disc (CD) produced by the prosecution marked as Ext-15, which is the videography of admission made by one of the co-accused, can be relied upon even if it was not accompanied by any certificate under section 65 B(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 since the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on extra judicial confession leading to discovery of facts and articles connected with the crime. 28. As noted above, it is the case of the prosecution that two of the accused-persons, viz., Suchendra Das and Chandan Das had confessed before the I.O. to have committed the crime while they were in police custody. According to PW-10, accused-Chandan Das had also led to recovery of a “dao” used in the offence from his house. 29. Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872; provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. There is a similar bar created by section 26 of the Evidence Act. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, being relevant in the context of this case, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. - No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. Confession to police officer not to be proved. - No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. - No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate/shall be proved as against such person.” 30. From a bare reading of sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, it is apparent that no confession made to a police officer or whilst he is in custody of police, unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against such person. Sections 25 and 26, therefore, clearly provides a bar on proving any extra judicial confession made by the accused in presence of police or whilst in the police custody. 31. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, however, carves out an exception to sections 25 and 26 which permits the prosecution to prove so much of such information provided by the accused while in police custody leading to discovery of any fact in consequence of such information received from the accused-person of any offence. 32. In the case of Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 9 SCC 315 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the question of admissibility of statements made by accused-persons to the police. While dealing with the question of admissibility of such confession made to a police officer, following observations were made in paragraph 21, which are reproduced herein below:- “21. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession by the accused-person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession by the accused-person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. However, to the aforesaid rule of sections 25 to 26 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out by section 27 the Evidence Act providing that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is a proviso to sections 25 and 26. Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.” 33. In the present case, as noted above, the extra judicial confession was admittedly and evidently made by one of the accused in the Police Station and in the presence of police. Although the learned trial court has held that the same was made in presence of a Magistrate, yet, the PW-2, i.e., the Magistrate did not support the said assertion. However, even assuming that the Executive Magistrate was present when such confession was made while in police custody, even then, the same would be hit by section 26 of the Evidence Act unless such confession is recorded in compliance of section 164, Cr.PC. There is no other evidence in this case to show that the accused had made any extra judicial confession in presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused-Suchendra Das was clearly not admissible in evidence. 34. Insofar as the discovery leading to recovery of “dao” is concerned, we have already held that the extra judicial confession of the accused made to the police during the course of investigation would not be admissible in evidence. Therefore, the extra judicial confession of the accused-Suchendra Das was clearly not admissible in evidence. 34. Insofar as the discovery leading to recovery of “dao” is concerned, we have already held that the extra judicial confession of the accused made to the police during the course of investigation would not be admissible in evidence. In the State of Assam, particularly in the semi-urban areas, such type of “dao” is a commonly used instrument for cutting, which is normally found in every household. Therefore, the mere recovery of a “dao” from the house of any person, without there being any cogent evidence to link the same with the commissioning of the offence would not be of any significance in proving the prosecution case. It is also to be noted that even the seizure witness of the “dao” has also not been examined by the prosecution in this case. Therefore, there is considerable doubt as to the seizure of the “dao” as well. 35. In the present case, evidence on record clearly goes to show that the location was shown by the villagers, whereafter, the dead body was dug out by the police on 13.7.2017, on the direction of the Circle Officer. The alleged discovery of the “dao” was made on a later date. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the alleged recovery of the “dao” on being led by the accused, even if held to be true, would not come within the sweep of section 27 of the Evidence Act. 36. It has been projected by the prosecution that the accused had made extra judicial confession before the police. Yet, no attempt was made by the I.O to get such confession recorded before a Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.PC. No reason has also been cited for not doing so. Therefore, we fail to understand, if there was indeed any confession made by the accused voluntarily then why, instead of making a vidoegraphy of the same, no attempt was made to record such confession judicially by following the due process of law. 37. No reason has also been cited for not doing so. Therefore, we fail to understand, if there was indeed any confession made by the accused voluntarily then why, instead of making a vidoegraphy of the same, no attempt was made to record such confession judicially by following the due process of law. 37. We have held that in view of the bar created by sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the so-called extra judicial confession of the accused made to the police during the course of investigation was not admissible evidence and, hence, could not have been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, regardless of whether the CD was accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, by the same logic, the Ext-15, being the recorded version of such confession of the accused made before the police, would also be in-admissible in evidence. As such, we are of the view that the learned trial court was not correct in relying upon the CD(Ext-15) for convicting the accused-persons. If the extra judicial confession of the accused while in police custody is discarded, there is no evidence in this case to prove the charge brought against the appellants. 38. It is no doubt true that the victim had suffered a homicidal death under tragic circumstances whereby the miscreants had apparently buried the dead body after committing a heinous offence. However, what must be borne in mind that no person can be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment unless the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, as observed above, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 39. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the finding of guilt of the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants and the sentence awarded to them by the judgment and order dated 17.1.2019 stands set aside. The appellants are hereby acquitted and set at liberty. All the three appeals stand allowed. However, this order, shall not disturb direction, if any, pertaining to payment of victim's compensation. Before parting with the record, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the services rendered by Ms. The appellants are hereby acquitted and set at liberty. All the three appeals stand allowed. However, this order, shall not disturb direction, if any, pertaining to payment of victim's compensation. Before parting with the record, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the services rendered by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae, by rendering her assistance to the court for disposal of the appeal and direct the Registry to make available to him, just remuneration, as per the notified rate. Send back the LCR.