JUDGMENT : JAY SENGUPTA, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 3rd April, 2019 and sentence dated 4th April, 2019, thereby convicting the appellant and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Penal Code. 2. On 25th April, 2013 at about 1.00 hours, the victim’s sister (PW1) lodged a First Information Report with the Ograbraj Police Station against the present appellant, the husband of his sister, alleging commission of offences under Sections 324 and 302 of the Penal Code. In the said complaint, the defacto complainant alleged that her elder sister Hema used to reside with her husband and two minor children at Prem Nagar. The appellant was addicted to liquor and used to assault her sister regularly. After consuming liquor, he would regularly beat up the victim. The victim used to tell them about such assault. The appellant was a truck driver. On 1st April, 2013 the victim went away somewhere without informing anyone. On 18th April, 2013, the victim reported to the Police Station after seeing her photo in the TV channels as a missing person. She told the police that her husband used to beat her up regularly, which prompted her to leave. On the same day the victim came to the informant’s house with her two children, by boat. From that day on she and her two children started residing at the defacto complainant’s house. On 20th April, 2013 at about 7 P.M., when the informant came back from duty she saw the accused/appellant sitting outside the house. The appellant asked her husband and the victim to forgive him and said that he would not repeat the mistakes. The victim and the informant’s husband asked him to get out of the house. He went out and slept in front of the house at night. In the morning, the appellant was not found there. The victim told that her husband had taken away her Birth Certificate, Local Certificate, Aadhar Card and Islander Card, etc. On 24th April, 2013 the informant was sitting inside her house watching television. He went out and slept in front of the house at night. In the morning, the appellant was not found there. The victim told that her husband had taken away her Birth Certificate, Local Certificate, Aadhar Card and Islander Card, etc. On 24th April, 2013 the informant was sitting inside her house watching television. At about 9.30 P.M. she heard a loud noise from the front of her house. She and her husband (PW3) came out and saw that the appellant was hitting the victim with a ‘dao’ and she was trying to save herself. The informant tried to stop this and in the process received cut injuries at her left hand middle finger and wrist. Blood stated flowing. When her husband tried to save her sister, the appellant hit him thrice with a ‘dao’ as a result of which her husband’s left hand, back and stomach were hit. Then she shouted and took her husband near the house of her sister-in-law (PW2) and told that the appellant was hitting the victim. He sister-in-law (PW2) called up a jeep driver to bring the jeep and also called up the police. They all sat in the jeep and were going to Tushnabad Primary Health Center. In front of Ram Mandir they found a police vehicle and intimated the police about the incident of the appellant assaulting the victim with a dao. The informant and her husband went to hospital for treatment in the private jeep. In the meantime, the police van bought the victim Hema to the hospital for treatment in a police vehicle. The informant’s sister died after examination up by doctor (PW21). During investigation the Investigating Officer arrested the accused, seized the ‘dao’ from him (Exhibit 37) as well as the wearing apparel of the accused. He prepared an inquest report (Exhibit 28) over the dead body of the victim and thereafter collected the post-mortem report (Exhibit 36). He also seized blood-stained earth, a bloodstained pair of slippers and blood-stained pieces of cloth taken from pillow cover, bed sheet, blood-stained broken part of mobile phone, a blood-stained bunch of hair etc. He also seized the wearing apparel of the victim/ deceased. After completion of investigation of Investigating Agency submitted the charge sheet dated 8th July, 2013 against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 324 and 302 of the Penal Code. 3. He also seized the wearing apparel of the victim/ deceased. After completion of investigation of Investigating Agency submitted the charge sheet dated 8th July, 2013 against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 324 and 302 of the Penal Code. 3. On 13th March, 2014 the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The case of the defence was a simple denial of the prosecution case as would be evident from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. 5. PW1 was the defacto complainant and the younger sister of the victim/deceased. She was an injured eye witness of the incident. She gave statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. She was also a witness to the seizure list for the seizure of the victim’s wearing apparel. In the cross, she admitted that the incident of the appellant coming to their house on 20th April, 2013 was not reported to the Police Station. She also stated that her husband was a private worker and that time dao, knife, ballams used to be there at their house. PW2 was the sister-in-law of the PW1. Immediately after the incident PW1 came to his house and narrate the facts. She saw the injuries sustained by PW1 and his brother (PW3). She called the jeep in which PW1 and PW3 went to the hospital. PW3 was the husband of PW1. He was an injured eye witnesses. After hearing a hue and cry from the victim, he and PW1 went outside the room and saw that the appellant and victim were quarrelling. The appellant had a ‘dao’ in his hand. He went to snatch it. In the process, he received serious injuries. The appellant assaulted the victim with the said dao. PW1 took him to the road for going to a hospital. She called a jeep and both of them went to the hospital. He became senseless at the hospital. He was witness to the seizure of his wearing apparel. He went to snatch it. In the process, he received serious injuries. The appellant assaulted the victim with the said dao. PW1 took him to the road for going to a hospital. She called a jeep and both of them went to the hospital. He became senseless at the hospital. He was witness to the seizure of his wearing apparel. In his cross, he did say ‘I did not see Kartick to assault Hema with dao, soon after his other answer namely ‘I cannot say whether Kartick used to assault Hema or not’. PW4 is a neighbour of PW1 and a post occurrence witness. She heard a hue and cry and came out. She saw that the surrounding area was stained with blood. Upon inquiry, the appellant’s son told her that the appellant had ‘cut’ the victim. She also saw bleeding injury on PWs1 and 3. She informed the matter to the police over phone. Before police could arrive, PWs1 and 3 went to hospital in a jeep. The appellant’s son further told her that his father sat on the chest of his mother and assaulted her with a dao. When they went near the place of the occurrence, the appellant threatened them with assault. By then the police arrive and arrested the appellant. She was a witnessed to the seizure of chappal, handle of the dao, newspaper stained with blood, blood-stained bed sheet, pillow and other articles. She identified the materials exhibits like the chappal, bed sheet, carpet, a pillow, an empty bottle, an empty glass, a blanket, broken pieces of mobile phone a blood-stained newspaper and the handle of dao as seized by the police. In her cross, she stated that her house was by the side of PW1 mother’s house. She did not tell the police about the statement made by the appellant’s son. PW5 was brother of PW2 and a neighbour. He was both a pre-occurrence witness and a post-occurrence witness in respect of the said incident. He deposed that on the fateful night between 9:00 to 9:30 P.M. the appellant came to their basti and had a talk with him. He said he was going to his house to see his sons. Sometime latter PW5 received a phone call from his sister PW2 requesting him to arrange a vehicle for taking PWs1 and 3 to hospital. Accordingly, he went there with a jeep. He said he was going to his house to see his sons. Sometime latter PW5 received a phone call from his sister PW2 requesting him to arrange a vehicle for taking PWs1 and 3 to hospital. Accordingly, he went there with a jeep. After going there, he saw the appellant shouting being armed with a dao. Then he took his brother and his wife to the hospital. He was a seizure list witness for the seizure of the motorcycle and helmet of the appellant from near his house. In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he did not tell the police about seeing the appellant shouting being armed with a dao. PW6 was also a local witness. His younger brother-in-law (PW5) arranged for a jeep to take PWs1 and 3 to hospital. On the following day he witnessed the seizure of bloodstained earth and one glass and empty bottle from the place. In his cross, he could not say about contents of the seizure list. PW7 was the brother of the appellant. He was declared hostile. PW8 was a neighbour and a post occurrence witness. He was a witness to the seizure of mobile phone, wrist watch, pant and t-shirt belonging to the appellant and identified the material exhibits in Court. He was also signatory to the seizure list for the seizure of blood samples collected by the doctor from the appellant and PWs1 and 3. In his cross, he admitted that the blood samples were not collected in his presence. PW9 was the younger brother of PW3. After the incident PW1 came weeping to his house and narrated the incident. On going to the spot, he found the victim lying on the ground. The appellant was also sitting there. After sometime police came. He was a witness to the seizure of wearing apparel, wrist watch, mobile phone of the appellant. He was also the signatory to the inquest report of the deceased. He also signed in the seizure list for seizure of blood-stained wearing apparel of his brother and brother’s wife. He also signed at the seizure list for ornaments worn by the deceased. In his cross, he stated that his house was intervened by four houses from the house of PW1. PW10 was the driver of the jeep in which PWs1 and 3 were taken to the hospital. He also signed at the seizure list for ornaments worn by the deceased. In his cross, he stated that his house was intervened by four houses from the house of PW1. PW10 was the driver of the jeep in which PWs1 and 3 were taken to the hospital. On their way the met the police near Ram Mandir and PW1 informed them about the occurrence. In his cross, he stated that the distance between his house of and the house of PW1 is about 1½ Kms. PW11 was the 12 years son of the PWs1 and 3. After his competence was tested, he was examined as a witness. He deposed that after hearing a hue and cry from the victim, his aunt, he saw his aunt came running to their house. Then the appellant entered the house after cutting the door with the help of the dao. Then the appellant cut his aunt with a dao. Out of fear PW11 fled away from the place to the house of his paternal grandmother. He identified the appellant in Court. In his cross, he could not say the date on which he was being examined. PW12 was also a local post occurrence witness. PW1 told him to get ready as he was bringing the jeep. They took the jeep and went to the house of PW3. He saw injuries on the scapula and abdomen of PW3. PW3 also stated about the assault by the appellant on his wife and the sister-in-law, victim/deceased. They went to the hospital with PWs 1 and 3. On going to the house of PW1 he saw the ictim/deceased lying in pool of blood and screaming in pain. Then he and the police personnel took the victim to the hospital. The victim was admitted there, but succumbed to the injuries. At about 2:00 A.M. they came to the house of PW1 in search of the appellant. The appellant was sitting with a handleless bent dao in his hand inside the house. The police seized the dao under a proper seizure list and arrested the appellant. PW13 was friend of PW10 the driver of the jeep. He too accompanied the injured witnesses and others to the hospital. When they reached Ram Mandir, PW12 entered the police vehicle and went with them. PW14 also accompanied the two injured to the hospital. The police seized the dao under a proper seizure list and arrested the appellant. PW13 was friend of PW10 the driver of the jeep. He too accompanied the injured witnesses and others to the hospital. When they reached Ram Mandir, PW12 entered the police vehicle and went with them. PW14 also accompanied the two injured to the hospital. PW12 got down at Ram Mandir and boarded the police vehicle. PW15 was tendered for cross-examination. PW16 was a Senior Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Port Blair. He accompanied the police personnel for seizure of articles like bed sheets, pillow, etc. from the place of occurrence. The materials were was handed over to the SHO. PW17 was a Police Constable. He took 21 photographs at the place of occurrence and prepared some copies. PW18, a local witness, turned hostile during trial. PW19 chalked out the FIR at the Police Station. PW20 was a Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time. After receiving information about a fight that occurred at Mithakhari, Ranchi Basti, he proceeded for the spot. On the way at Ram Mandir they found vehicle carrying PWs1 and 3 to hospital. They were informed about the incident. PW12 boarded their vehicle and all of them went to the place of occurrence. He found that the victim was lying on a floor on a chattai and she was writhing in pain and was in a pool of blood. With the help of locals they brought the lady to the hospital. During the course of treatment, the victim passed away. She recorded the statement of PW1 which was sent to the Police Station for chalking out the FIR. After investigation was conducted by PW22, he was asked to submit the charge-sheet, which he did. PW21 was the medical officer who examined PWs1 and 3. He found several injuries on the two. He also examined the appellant on the same day. Some injuries were also found on the person of the appellant. On 20.04.2013 he conducted the post mortem examination of the victim lady. During post mortem, examination he found 56 number of injuries on the body, most of which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to him, the victim died from haemorrhagic shock leading loss of large quantity of blood. On 20.04.2013 he conducted the post mortem examination of the victim lady. During post mortem, examination he found 56 number of injuries on the body, most of which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to him, the victim died from haemorrhagic shock leading loss of large quantity of blood. In his cross, the doctor stated that the victim was again examined on 25.04.2013 and no injury was detected then. PW22 was the investigating officer of the case. After taking up investigation of the case, he found the appellant standing behind a tree near the spot. He was having a bent dao without handle. He arrested the appellant and seized the dao. He recorded the statement of the appellant, seized articles and also examined other witnesses. He collected the injury report of the injured witnesses and the appellant and also collected the post mortem report. He also seized the motorcycle of the appellant and the helmet from near the place of occurrence. He also received CFSL report and handed over to the SHO for submission of supplementary charge-sheet. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 13.03.2014 containing his signature was also submitted. 6. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant simply denied the prosecution case. Although he stated that he was present in his house at Prem Nagar, he refused to adduce any defence witness. 7. Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted as follows. There were several inconsistencies in the testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses and the immediate post occurrence witnesses. While PWs1 and 3 deposed that the incident took place in front of their house, their minor child PW11 stated that the appellant cut the lock of their room with a dao, entered inside and then assaulted the victim. In his cross, the PW3 admitted that he did not see the appellant hit the victim with a dao. Also while PW11 came to depose as an eye witness, his mother said that the child was sleeping at the time. The earlier incident of 20.04.2013 regarding the appellant visiting their house was not reported either by PW1 or PW3 to the police. Although there were several houses in the locality, no independent witness came to testify as eye witness. Only interested relatives of the victim or of PW1 came to adduce evidence in this regard. The earlier incident of 20.04.2013 regarding the appellant visiting their house was not reported either by PW1 or PW3 to the police. Although there were several houses in the locality, no independent witness came to testify as eye witness. Only interested relatives of the victim or of PW1 came to adduce evidence in this regard. 56 injuries cannot be inflicted by one individual. The medical evidence renders the sequence of events suspect. The offending weapon was not fully exhibited. Moreover, neither the intention nor the motive behind the said act could be established by the prosecution. Not only were there contradictions between purported eye witness, even post occurrence witnesses didn’t deposed in the same line. Several witnesses made materials improvements in their versions before the learned Trial Judge from the ones they had given before the Investigating Officer. For instance, PW9 never stated to the police that on going to the place of occurrence he saw the appellant sitting there. PW11 too stated for the first time in Court that the appellant entered into the house after cutting the door with the help of a dao. The prosecution miserably failed to establish its case. 8. Ms. A.S.Zinu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Administration, submitted as follows. There is abundance of evidence available with the prosecution in this case. There are pre-occurrence and post occurrence witnesses besides the three eye witnesses. Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses cannot render the prosecution case bad. The sequence of events and the attending circumstances clearly point to the guilt of the accused. The dao was seized in two parts. This cannot be termed as fatal for the prosecution. The 56 injuries as referred to in the post mortem report need not be seen as the result of 56 different blows. A single blow can cause several injuries, some on the outer part of body and some on the inner organs. The appellant failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code and his attempt to raise a plea of alibi was vague and bereft of any material particulars. The prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The appellant failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code and his attempt to raise a plea of alibi was vague and bereft of any material particulars. The prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. We heard the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and the Administration and perused the petition of appeal, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the evidence adduced in the case and the other materials on record. DELAY IN LODGING THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT 10. The incident allegedly took place at 21:30 hours on 24.04.2013. The victim/deceased received the 56 number of injuries on her person. She lay in pool of blood. The appellant was still there having a dao in his hand and threating others. So, PWs1 and 3, who had received serious cut injuries on their persons as well in trying to extricate the victim from the incessant assaults committing on her by the appellant, unfortunately thought it prudent to tend to their injuries first. PW1 asked a neighbour and relative to call a jeep and after it came both of them went towards the hospital for treatment. On their way near Ram Mandir, they chanced upon a police vehicle and informed them about the incident. One of the accompanying locals namely, PW12 got down and boarded the police vehicle for going towards the place of occurrence and also to attend to the victim/deceased. It was only thereafter that the informant PW1 could lodged the First Information Report. In the meantime, the victim was also taken to a hospital and she succumbed to her injuries after sometime. The time taken for all these quite understandably resulted in registration of the First Information Report at one o’clock in the night of 24-25.04.2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. NON-REPORTING OF THE PRIOR INCIDENT 11. Admittedly, a marital discord was present between the appellant and the victim. The victim was allegedly tortured by the appellant which led to her leaving their home without intimation. After lodging of a missing diary, the victim returned. However, she took her minor children and started staying in the house of her sister (PW1). NON-REPORTING OF THE PRIOR INCIDENT 11. Admittedly, a marital discord was present between the appellant and the victim. The victim was allegedly tortured by the appellant which led to her leaving their home without intimation. After lodging of a missing diary, the victim returned. However, she took her minor children and started staying in the house of her sister (PW1). A few days before the fateful incident i.e. on 20.04.2013 the appellant went to the house of PWs1 and 3 to bring back the victim. However, the same was not allowed. The appellant allegedly slept in front of their house at night and went away on the next morning. This incident cannot be regarded as one which needed to be reported to the police. Therefore, non-reporting of such incident is hardly of any significance. MOTIVE AND INTENTION BEHIND THE ACT 12. Although it is not necessary to prove motive behind a crime, a presence of it can bolster a prosecution case. Unlike what was submitted on behalf of the defence, a motive behind crime is clearly made out from the desperation shown by the appellant to meet the victim and from the prior discord between the two. Intention to murder, however, can develop instantaneously and it is from the attending facts and circumstances that an intention to commit a crime is to be deduced. TESTIMONIES OF INJURED EYE WITNESSES 13. PW1, the defacto complainant and the sister of the victim deceased had vividly stated the facts leading up to the murder of her sister in the First Information Report. She was also examined, soon thereafter, by a learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. During trial, PW1 fully corroborated her First Information Report. She was an injured eye witness whose evidence could not be shaken during the cross-examination. The prosecution case gets further strengthened by an eye witness account given by the husband of the PW1 namely, PW3. He too received serious injuries at the hand of the appellant. PW3 substantially corroborated the version given by the PW1. His statement in the cross that he did not see the appellant assault the victim with a ‘dao’ has to be read in conjunction with his immediately preceding statement that he could not say whether the appellant used to assault the victim previously or not. Injured eye witnesses are the best possible witnesses available in a criminal trial. His statement in the cross that he did not see the appellant assault the victim with a ‘dao’ has to be read in conjunction with his immediately preceding statement that he could not say whether the appellant used to assault the victim previously or not. Injured eye witnesses are the best possible witnesses available in a criminal trial. In the facts of the present case the evidence of PWs1 and 3 appear to be cogent and convincing. EVIDENCE OF THE MINOR WITNESS 14. PW11 was the minor child of the PWs1 and 3. He too claimed to be an eye witness. He added that victim came running to the house and the appellant cut the door of their house with a dao, entered the house and then assaulted the victim. Actually, there is no contradiction between the versions given by PW11 on one hand and PWs 1 and 3 on the other. PWs 1 and 3 saw the assault on the victim taking place in their house. After receiving injuries, PWs1 and 3 left to tend to these. When PW11 woke up, he saw the victim come running to the house. Then, the appellant cut the door, entered inside the house and assaulted the victim. So, this is an account of the continuing assault. POST OCCURRENCE WITNESSES 15. There were several post occurrence witnesses to this case like PWs 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 20. Most of them saw the victim lying with severe injuries in a pool of blood. Some of them like PWs 4, 5, 9, 12, 22 also saw the accused at the spot. There was also a pre-occurrence witness, PW5 who had met the appellant near in the village soon before the incident. SEIZURE OF OFFENDING WEAPON IN PARTS AND PLACE OF OCCURRENCE 16. Although some doubts were raised about the purported seizure of the sharp portion of the dao from the appellant, the same are not convincing. Moreover, the blunt handle of the dao that was duly seized from the room in the presence of witnesses. In fact, as per the forensic report dated 12.11.2013 (Exhibit 39), the sharp portion and the handle seized could be part of the same object. That apart, the place of occurrence was also fixed by production of seized blood-stained earth and blood-stained articles and the like. SEIZURE OF MOTORCYCLE AND HELMET 17. In fact, as per the forensic report dated 12.11.2013 (Exhibit 39), the sharp portion and the handle seized could be part of the same object. That apart, the place of occurrence was also fixed by production of seized blood-stained earth and blood-stained articles and the like. SEIZURE OF MOTORCYCLE AND HELMET 17. The motorcycle and the helmet purportedly belonging to the appellant were also seized from the place of occurrence on the next date. It is unfortunate though that the investigating agency did not produce the documents regarding ownership of the motorcycle. ONLY RELATIVES WERE SHOWN AS EYE WITNESSES 18. In a crime that is a result of a dispute between family members, one hardly comes across outsiders witnessing such incidents. In these cases, relatives are the most natural witnesses. Therefore, their evidence cannot be doubted simply because they happened to be the relatives of the victim. Moreover, the relatives of victim would only try to nail the real culprit and would hardly have any reason to falsely implicate others unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Although it was argued on behalf of the defence that there were other neighbouring houses in locality, from the evidence of the witnesses as also from the sketch map it appears that such houses were at some distance from each other. At late night, there would hardly be persons waiting outside their houses to witness any incident at a distance. Therefore, absence of independent witnesses in the present case is quite justified and well explained. MEDICAL EVIDENCES 19. PW21, the post mortem Doctor had vividly recorded the number of injuries inflicted on the victim. The total number of injuries was 56. Therefore, as rightly seen by the injured eye witnesses, the appellant hit victim deceased several times. Apart from other things, this clearly proves the intention of the accused that he wanted do away with the victim for good. The number of injuries do not necessarily indicate the number of blows given. One particular blow given to an individual may cause different number of injuries, some superficial ones and others corresponding injuries on the inner organs. Therefore, it cannot be necessarily concluded that so many injuries cannot be caused by a single individual. The injury reports, the post mortem and the evidence of the doctor fully corroborated the prosecution case. CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES COMPLETE 20. Therefore, it cannot be necessarily concluded that so many injuries cannot be caused by a single individual. The injury reports, the post mortem and the evidence of the doctor fully corroborated the prosecution case. CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES COMPLETE 20. Besides the eye witness accounts, the sequence of events and the evidence of witnesses as regards such sequence complete the chain of circumstances that, in turn, goes to support the prosecution case. First, there was a prior grudge between the couple. Then the appellant came and assaulted the victim violently. PWs1 and 3 tried to save the victim and got seriously injured. They ran for treatment and in the process the police was informed. The police came, took the lady to the hospital where the victim succumbed to her injuries. In this entire process, not only were the three eye witnesses involved, but different parts of this chain of events were witnessed by different persons. They include neighbouring relatives, the jeep driver and his friend and last but not the least the police personnel. It was also not unnatural for the appellant to have waited at the place of occurrence with the weapon, threatening others, may be as a defensive reaction. All these complete the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. PLEA OF ALIBI 21. The appellant simply denied the allegations made against him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code. At the end he tried to set up plea of alibi by stating that he was at his house at Prem Nagar at the relevant time. However, he did not try to prove his alibi by adducing defence witnesses. 22. Therefore, in view of the unshaken testimonies of the injured eye witnesses, the evidence adduced by the pre-occurrence and the post occurrence witnesses, the medical evidence and the complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 24. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. Let a copy of this judgement and order be sent down to the learned Trial Court along with the lower court records. 26. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual necessary formalities. I agree.