JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. The instant criminal appeal has been directed on behalf of appellant/convict Habib Mian @ Habib Ansari against the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No.91 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under sections 341, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence under section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo RI for 6 months, further for the offence under section 324 of IPC RI of 3 years, for the offence under section 341 of IPC RI for one month was directed. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that the informant Jamir Mian had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 02.03.2020 in the morning at 6 O'clock he was sleeping in his house. All of sudden his wife Majida Khatoon cried. Hearing her screamings he came out of the house and saw his wife lying on the ground inside the room. His son Habib Mian was assaulting with the knife and was stating that why she had sold the land. His wife in injured condition intruded beneath the chowki in order to save herself. His son still continued to assault her with the knife. The persons of locality also attracted there however he nabbed his son Habib Mian at the spot. Thereafter Bangali, son of Qurban Mian snatched away the knife from Habib Mian. His wife had sustained injuries in her stomach, hands, legs. The blood was oozing from her mouth. She was rushed to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bermo by the Balero car from there she was referred to BGH, Bokaro where she underwent treatment. The statement of the informant was recorded in the hospital. On this written information Case Crime No. 49 of 2020 was registered under section 341, 324 and 307 of IPC against Habib Mian. During treatment, the injured died and section 302 of IPC was added. The statement of the informant was recorded in the hospital. On this written information Case Crime No. 49 of 2020 was registered under section 341, 324 and 307 of IPC against Habib Mian. During treatment, the injured died and section 302 of IPC was added. The investigating officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet against accused Habib Mian for the offence under sections 341, 324 and 302 of IPC. 3. The Court of Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro who further transferred the same for trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat. 4. The trial court framed charge against the accused under sections 341, 324 and 302 of IPC the same was read over and explained to the accused which were denied by the accused and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in documentary evidence exhibited seizure memo of blood stained knife Material Exhibit-1, blood stained white colour full pant Material Exhibit-II, blood stained white colour shirt Material Exhibit-III and signature on the seizure memo Exhibit-1 and 1/1, postmortem report of deceased Exhibit-2, confessional statement of Habib Mian Exhibit-3, fardbeyan Exhibit-4, endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the fardbeyan Exhibit-4/1, formal FIR Exhibit-5, inquest report of deceased Exhibit-X, forwarding application for production of seized material Exhibit-6 and in oral evidence examined PW1- Jamaluddin Mian, PW2- Md. Tanbir Alam @ Tanbir Hussain, PW3-Jamir Mian, PW4-Dr. Ravi Shekhar, PW5-Devesh Kumar and PW6- Karam Singh Purti. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC who denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. 7. On behalf of accused no defense evidence was adduced. 8. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as stated hereinabove. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the instant criminal appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant-convict on the ground that the impugned judgment is based on the wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. 9. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the instant criminal appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant-convict on the ground that the impugned judgment is based on the wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The informant is the only eye witness of the alleged occurrence but he has improved his statement during examination before the trial court. In the postmortem report of deceased, no opinion is given by Dr. Ravi Shekhar in regard to the nature of the injury and also did not opine whether the said injuries were sufficient to cause death of victim. On behalf of prosecution the doctor who had given the treatment to the injured during her admission in the hospital was not examined. In view of the above prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and to allow the appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court, the appraisal of the evidence on record is required which is reproduced hereinbelow: 11.1 PW1-Jamalludin Mian in his examination-in-chief says the seizure memo dated 02.03.2020 bears his signature which is marked as Exhibit-1. Two years ago in the morning, he was at his house. He heard the hue and cry from the house of Jamir Mian and on reaching there he found Majida Khatoon lying in pool of blood. Jamir Mian, Tabrej Alam and another persons of the village were also present there and came to know that someone has committed murder of the wife of Jamir Mian. This witness was declared hostile on behalf of prosecution and cross-examined. In cross-examination this witness denied the statement given to the investigating officer under section 161 of Cr.PC. 11.2 PW2-Md. Tanbir Alam @ Tanbir Hussain in his examination-in-chief stated that the seizure memo dated 02.03.2020 bears his signature. He identified the same marked Exhibit-1/1. This witness also stated that the police has not interrogated him. This witness was also declared hostile on behalf of prosecution and cross-examined. During cross-examination this witness denied his statement given to the investigating officer under section 161 of Cr.PC. He identified the same marked Exhibit-1/1. This witness also stated that the police has not interrogated him. This witness was also declared hostile on behalf of prosecution and cross-examined. During cross-examination this witness denied his statement given to the investigating officer under section 161 of Cr.PC. In cross-examination by the accused, this witness has stated his signature on the seizure memo were taken on the plain paper. In cross-examination by the court itself, this witness has stated that he is the matric pass and can read and write english. He knows that prior to put signature on any paper, the same is to read first. 11.3 PW3-Jamir Mian this witness in his examination-in-chief says occurrence is of March, 2020 it was 6 O'clock in the morning he was sleeping in a room of his house. He heard the screamings of his wife Majida Khatoon and he rushed to her and saw that his son Habib Mian was assaulting her with the knife. Habib Mian was dragging his wife who had gone beneath the chowki. He assaulted on both legs and hands of his wife. Blood was oozing. He also caught hold of Habib Mian. Bengali son of Qurban Mian also came there who snatched away the knife from the hand of Habib Mian. Thereafter, Bengali left the place of occurrence then neighbor Jasim Razza came there and Habib Mian was nabbed. He was brought in the street. Police was called by Jasim Razza. The police also took Habib Mian and the knife in its custody. His wife was taken to the police station by the vehicle thereafter to the Bermo Hospital for treatment from there she was referred to BGH, Bokaro and he was called by police from BGH to the police station where his statement was recorded. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan. In cross-examination this witness says Majida Khatoon was his second wife. His first wife was Hakiman Bibi who had died in the year 1991. Having heard the screaming of his wife he came out of the room within 2 or 3 minutes and caught hold of Habib Mian and also raised alarm. The persons of the locality also attracted there son of Qurban Mian namely Bengali, Jasim Razza another persons also attracted there. Bengali had snatched away the knife from Habib Mian. Having heard the screaming of his wife he came out of the room within 2 or 3 minutes and caught hold of Habib Mian and also raised alarm. The persons of the locality also attracted there son of Qurban Mian namely Bengali, Jasim Razza another persons also attracted there. Bengali had snatched away the knife from Habib Mian. Habib Mian was caught hold of there and thereafter was handed over to the police. Majida Khatoon had sold the land is known to him but he has no proof of the same in his possession. To whom the said land was sold he does not recollect. It was mentioned in the written information that having heard the screamings he rushed there and found that Habib Mian was assaulting his wife Majida Khatoon with the knife. In the written information it was not mentioned that his wife had rushed beneath the Chowki and Habib Mian was dragging her out. This witness denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated his son because the demand of more money was made from the son. 11.4 PW4-Dr. Ravi Shekhar in his examination-in-chief says that on 06.03.2020 he was posted at SDH, Chas as Medical Officer and at about 01:50 PM he conducted postmortem over the deadbody of Majida Khatoon and found following injuries: (i) Contusion 1”X1/2” over occipital region. (ii) Two stitches over right little finger. (iii) Three stitches over right clavicular region. (iv) Multiple stitched wound over left palm. (v) 20 stitches over mid line of abdomen. (vi) 5 stitches over left lower chest (transverse wound). (vii) 2 stitches over left lumbar region. (viii) 2 stitches over left wrist. (ix) 2 stitch over left leg. Cause of death:-Cardio-respiratory failure due to the hemorrhage septicemia and shock due to multiple perforated wound over abdomen. All these wounds were caused by sharp cutting object like knife or dagger and was ante-mortem in nature. Time elapsed since death was 24 hours. In cross-examination this witness says he has not mentioned in the postmortem report that the above injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 11.5 PW5-Devesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief says on 02.03.2020 he was posted at Bermo Police Station as Sub-Inspector. As per order of Officer-in-Charge of the station the investigation of Case Crime No. 49 of 2020 was taken over by him. 11.5 PW5-Devesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief says on 02.03.2020 he was posted at Bermo Police Station as Sub-Inspector. As per order of Officer-in-Charge of the station the investigation of Case Crime No. 49 of 2020 was taken over by him. He recorded the restatement of informant and inspected the place of occurrence. He arrested the accused Habib Mian and also took in his custody blood stained knife, blood stained shirt, blood stained white colour full-pant from the place of occurrence in presence of accused and the persons of locality. Seizure memo was prepared on 03.02.2020 which is in his handwriting and signature marked Exhibit-1/2. He recorded statement of Tanbir Hussain and Jamaluddin Mian. He also recorded confessional statement of Habib Ansari which is in his handwriting and signature marked Exhibit-3. The xerox copy of the inquest report of deceased was received from Bokaro Police Station it is marked Exhibit-X. The written information of informant is in handwriting and signature of Sub-inspector Anant Kr. Singh. He identified the same marked as Exhibit-4 and also identified the endorsement of the Station Officer on the fardbeyan which is marked as Exhibit-4/1. Formal FIR bears signature of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, K.K. Sahu marked Exhibit-5. In cross-examination this witness says he did not inspect the place of occurrence and did not prepared the site plan. The blood stained knife, blood stained cloth and blood stained full-pant was seized; whether same was bearing human blood or not he is not aware? The seized material is not produced today in Court. During investigation he did not investigate on the point whether the deceased had any land or property in his own name. Jamir Mian in his fardbeyan has not mentioned that hearing the sound he reached there and saw that his wife Majida Khatoon was being assaulted by Habib Mian. It was mentioned by Jamir Mian in the fardbeyan when he came out of the house he found his wife inside the room fallen on the ground and his son Habib Mian was assaulting with knife. 11.6 PW6-Karam Singh Purti in his examination-in-chief says the seized material in the Case Crime No.49 of 2020 has been brought by him from the Malkhana by the order of Station In-charge of Police Station concerned. This order is in his handwriting and signature of the Station Officer In-charge marked Exhibit-6. 11.6 PW6-Karam Singh Purti in his examination-in-chief says the seized material in the Case Crime No.49 of 2020 has been brought by him from the Malkhana by the order of Station In-charge of Police Station concerned. This order is in his handwriting and signature of the Station Officer In-charge marked Exhibit-6. The seized material in Case Crime No.49 of 2020 is sealed in two plastic box, on which one paper is affixed bearing Case Crime No. 49 of 2020. It was also bears signature of Md. Tanbir Alam and Jamaluddin Mian. Both the box are Exhibited-A and B respectively. The sealed box was opened in the Court. Out of the box Exhibit-A one knife was recovered which is marked Exhibit-I and from the second box Exhibit-B one shirt and full-pant both blood stained were brought out. Both are marked Material Exhibit-II and III respectively. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per prosecution case the informant Jamir Mian is the eye witness of the occurrence. There is contradiction in the contents of the FIR and the statement of the informant during his examination before the trial court. He has improved the prosecution case during examination before the trial court. As per postmortem report of deceased nowhere is mentioned the nature of the injuries; whether it was grievous or fatal to life? The injured died after 3 days of the occurrence. The doctor who has given the treatment was not interrogated by the investigating Officer during investigation. PW4 doctor has not opined in regard to the nature of the injuries whether the same was fatal to life or grievous in nature as such the intention of the appellant/convict is not reflected to commit murder rather it shows that the appellant/convict intended only to inflict simple injury caused by the sharp cutting weapon. In view of the above contended that at the most the appellant can be convicted only for the offence under Section 324 of IPC since he had no intention to commit murder. 13. Per contra the learned APP opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The ocular evidence is also corroborated with medical evidence. 13. Per contra the learned APP opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The ocular evidence is also corroborated with medical evidence. Whatever minor contradiction is there that is not material and there is no improvement in statement of PW3-Jamir Mian who is the eye witness of the occurrence. In view of the above contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and needs no interference. 14. Prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The eye witness of the occurrence is PW3-Jamir Mian who is informant and is the husband of deceased and father of the appellant. As per statement of PW3 having heard the screaming of his wife, he awoke and reached to her and found that his son Habib Mian was assaulting her with the knife. He also came to rescue his wife. He caught hold of the appellant and raised alarm. The persons of the locality also attracted there. He has stated that the appellant had assaulted with the knife on the legs, hands and stomach and other parts of the body. 14.1 The testimony of this witness PW3-Jamir Mian is also corroborated with the medical evidence. PW4-Dr Ravi Shekhar in his examination-in-chief while proving the postmortem report Exhibit-2 found 9 multiple ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased such as (i) Contusion 1”X1/2” over occipital region. (ii) Two stitches over right little finger. (iii) Three stitches over right clavicular region. (iv) Multiple stitched wound over left palm. (v) 20 stitches over mid line of abdomen. (vi) 5 stitches over left lower chest (transverse wound). (vii) 2 stitches over left lumbar region. (viii) 2 stitches over left wrist. (ix) 2 stitch over left leg. PW 4, Dr. Ravi Shekhar has shown the cause of death, cardio respiratory failure due to the hemorrhage septicemia and shock due to the multiple perforated wound over the abdomen. He also opined that all these injuries were caused by the sharp cutting object like knife, dagger and were ante-mortem in nature. The testimony of PW3-Jamir Mian is not found in contradiction on the material point. 14.2 So far as the contents of the FIR are concerned, the testimony of PW3-Jamir Mian eye witness is not found in contradiction to the statement given to the IO. The testimony of PW3-Jamir Mian is not found in contradiction on the material point. 14.2 So far as the contents of the FIR are concerned, the testimony of PW3-Jamir Mian eye witness is not found in contradiction to the statement given to the IO. From the testimony of PW5-Devesh Kumar, I.O., if the same is read collectively, it is found PW3-Jamir Mian having heard the screaming of his wife immediately reached to the place of occurrence and found his son Habib Mian assaulting with knife to her. The testimony of PW3- Jamir Mian cannot be said to be tainted. 14.3 The conduct of the informant PW3-Jamir Mian becomes relevant as he has stated that while his son Habib Mian was assaulting his wife with the knife, he came to rescue and caught hold of him and the persons of the locality also came there. Bengali son of Qurban Mian also came there who snatched away the knife. Jasim Razza who had also come there called police and police came there and thereafter Habib Mian was handed over to the police. 14.4 Police also recovered in presence of the accused and the witnesses the blood stained knife, blood stained shirt and pant of the appellant. The seizure memo of the same was prepared as Exhibit-1. Though the witness of the seizure memo PW1-Jamaluddin Mian and PW2-Tanbir Alam both have turned hostile, yet they have admitted their signature on the seizure memo. The blood stained knife and the blood stained shirt and pant which the appellant was wearing at the time of the occurrence were also produced in Court by the witness PW6-Karam Singh Purti who has proved the knife as Material Exhibit-1 and blood stained shirt Material Exhibit-3 and blood stained pant Material Exhibit-2. The seizure memo Exhibit-1 which is in handwriting and signature of PW5-Devesh Kumar, IO has also been proved. 14.5 Certainly, the blood stained knife, blood stained shirt and the pant were not sent to FSL for examination. But on this very ground, the prosecution case cannot be discredited reason being the prosecution case is based on direct evidence and testimony of the sole eye witness PW3Jamir Mian is found trustworthy. The blood stained knife and the blood stained clothes of the appellant were taken in custody by the police at the place of occurrence and seizure memo of the same Exhibit-1 is found proved. The blood stained knife and the blood stained clothes of the appellant were taken in custody by the police at the place of occurrence and seizure memo of the same Exhibit-1 is found proved. As such, not sending them for examination to FSL is not found fatal to prosecution case. 14.6 The Hon'ble Apex Court in “State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh” (2005) 7 SCC 408 held: “13. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that no firearms were recovered and no seizure has been made of empties. It would have been better if this was done and it would have corroborated the prosecution story. Seizure of the firearms and recovering the empties and sending them for examination by the ballistic expert would have only corroborated the prosecution case but by not sending them to the ballistic expert in the present case is not fatal in view of the categorical testimony of PW 3 about the whole incident.” 15. So far as the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 4 Dr. Ravi Shekhar has not opined while proving the autopsy report Exhibit-2; whether the injury inflicted to the deceased were sufficient to cause death and were grievous in nature. In view of the lack of opinion of the doctor in this regard no offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out rather it was a case of 324 of IPC. 15.1 This plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not found tenable in view of the testimony of PW4-Dr. Ravi Shekhar who has proved the autopsy report Exhibit-2 of deceased. There are 9 multiple injuries on several body parts of deceased. Among the ante-mortem injuries as shown in the postmortem report of deceased injury no.5 there are twenty stitches over the mid line of abdomen and injury no.6 are the five stitches over the left lower chest (transverse wound). Though other stitches were on the legs, wrist, lumbar region, palm, right clavicular region. 15.2 The date of occurrence is 2.3.2020. Initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of IPC as because the injured was alive, she was taken to the hospital and during treatment, victim died on 6.3.2020 and thereafter Section 302 of IPC was added by the IO during investigation. 15.2 The date of occurrence is 2.3.2020. Initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of IPC as because the injured was alive, she was taken to the hospital and during treatment, victim died on 6.3.2020 and thereafter Section 302 of IPC was added by the IO during investigation. 15.3 Though the doctor who had given the treatment to the injured is not examined on behalf of prosecution, yet taking into consideration the 9 multiple ante-mortem injuries which were on various parts of the body including the abdomen and chest shows the intention of the assailant giving repeated blow with the knife that he intended to commit murder of the victim. The doctor has also opined the cause of the death cardio respiratory failure due to the hemorrhage septicemia and shock due to the multiple perforated wound over the abdomen. As per autopsy report there were 20 stitches over the mid line of abdomen caused by the sharp cutting weapon that is knife which shows the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the victim. 15.4 Herein it would be pertinent to give the provisions of Section 300 of IPC: “300. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probility, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” 15.5 In view of the ocular evidence of PW 3-Jamir Mian which is also corroborated with the medical evidence of PW4-Dr. Ravi Shekhar, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not found sustainable that the appellant had committed offence under Section 324 of IPC. 16. Ravi Shekhar, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not found sustainable that the appellant had committed offence under Section 324 of IPC. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant had also contended that the investigating officer has not proved the site plan of the place of occurrence and also did not inspect the place of occurrence. On this very ground contended that the prosecution case becomes doubtful in regard to the place of occurrence. 16.1 PW 5, Devesh Kumar, Investigating Officer in his Examination-in-Chief in the very opening para has stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence. He had also given the location of the place of occurrence and also the boundaries of the place of occurrence in Para-2 of his statement. Merely not preparing the site plan, it cannot be accepted that the place of occurrence is not proved from the prosecution evidence, rather it is well proved from the testimony of the eyewitness PW3Jamir Mian and also on the testimony of the PW1-Jamalludin Mian, PW2Tanbir Alam though these witnesses have become hostile, yet they have admitted that the injured victim was found injured lying in pool of blood in the house of Jamir Mian. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has also further submitted that in the written information itself, the motive of the occurrence is shown that the appellant while assaulting with knife was stating that why the land has been sold by the victim. But from the testimony of PW3-Jamir Mian, this motive is not proved. On this very ground the prosecution case becomes doubtful. 17.1 The prosecution case is based on direct evidence and in case of a direct evidence, motive of the occurrence becomes irrelevant. In the FIR itself, this motive has been mentioned that the appellant was while assaulting with the knife to the victim was saying why the land had been sold. PW3- Jamir Mian in his statement has not denied this fact, rather stated that his wife Majida Khatoon had sold 4 decimal land though he could not disclose the name of the person to whom it was sold and proof for the same was not filed. 17.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Murarilal Jivaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra” 1998 SCC (Cri.) 375 held: “20. 17.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Murarilal Jivaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra” 1998 SCC (Cri.) 375 held: “20. It was then urged by Mr Kohli that because of the political rivalry, the appellants were falsely implicated in the present crime. In the present case, since the evidence of eyewitnesses is found to be truthful, the motive assumes a secondary role.” 17.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in “Ganesh K. Gulve vs. State of Maharashtra” (2002) 7 SCC 71 held: “21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 156, 158 and 159-61 of 2002 contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the crime; the FIR was antetimed and there was non-compliance with the provision of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. There is no substance in any of the contentions. In the presence of the eyewitnesses including injured eyewitnesses, the question of the proof of the motive loses its significance. The High Court has, however, duly taken into consideration the motive which was caste hostility and prosperity of the family of the deceased persons and the securing of position by the family member of Satwa in the Gram Panchayat. Regarding the FIR, as already noticed, both the trial court and the High Court have not placed reliance thereupon and the matter has been rightly and adequately dealt with by the trial court and High Court. There is no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants.” 18. In view of the above analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution case is proved beyond all shadow of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court needs no interference and this criminal appeal deserved to be dismissed. 19. This criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is, hereby, affirmed. 20. The appellant is in jail, he is also directed to serve out the rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 21. Pending IA, if any, also stands disposed of. 22. Let the record of learned trial court be sent back alongwith copy of judgment for necessary compliance. Ananda Sen, J. - I agree