JUDGMENT
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated November 25, 1980 convicting the four appellants Chhotu Ram, Mohan Ram, Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 448, IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, on the first count, two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count and three months’ simple imprisonment on the last count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellants are the real brothers of PW 2 Tulsa Ram. PW 1 Gelu Ram is the son and PW 4 Smt. Nathi is the wife of Tulsa Ram. The parties are residents of village Gaajsar P.S. Churu. Tulsa Ram purchased an agricultural field long ago and was cultivating it. The appellants demanded a share in it and Tulsa Ram refused to oblige them. This sowed the seeds of discordance between him and the appellants The appellants started interfering in Tulsa Ram’s possession over the field. Tulsa Ram thereafter sold that field to the deceased Panna Ram, nearly two years before the incident. This sale further aggravated the relations between the appellants and Tulsa Ram They did not stop their unlawful activities and continued to interfere in Panna Ram’s possession over the field. Panna Ram filed a complaint under Section 447, IPC against them in the Court of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Churu. They all were convicted under Section 447, IPC on September 7, 1979 by the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Churu vide his judgment dated September 7, 1979 (Ex. P. 36). The conviction further fanned the fire.
3. At about 8.30 a.m. on September 9, 1979, PW 2 Tulsa Ram, PW 9 Khinva Ram and the deceased were smoking Chilam in the court-yard of Tulsa Ram. PW 1 Gillu Ram went to the well situate nearby to fetch water, Smt. Nathi was cooking the food in the Kitchen situate adjacent to the courtyard. Khinva Ram went away after some time. Tulsa Ram and the deceased Panna Ram continued to smoke the Chilam. While they were smoking, the appellants came there. Chhotu Ram had a Barchhi and the remaining had lathies. Accused Chhotu Ram struck a blow with his Barchhi to Tulsa Ram. Tulsa Ram fell down. Accused Chhotu Ram struck another blow of Barchhi on the head of Panna Ram. Panna Ram also fell down on the ground Thereafter the remaining three accused Mohanram, Sohan Ram and Katnaram struck blows to Tulsaram and Pannaram with their lathies. Smt. Nathi, seeing the incident, raised cries and fell on her husband Tulsaram from being further beaten. She was also administered lathi blows by accused Mohanram. Sohanram and Ratna Ram. Hearing the cries, PW 1 Gillu Ram, PW 3 Thand Ram, PW 5 Chimna Ram and PW 9 Khinva Ram rushed to the spot. They challenged the accused and the accused ran away. Tulsa Ram and Panna Ram became unconscious on the spot. Panna Ram never regained the senses thereafter. At about 11.00 a. m., the Station House Officer, P.S. Churu was informed on telephone by some anonymous person that an incident had taken place in village Gaajsar resulting in severe beatings. This information Ex. P. 23-A was reduced into writing in the Rojnamcha of the police station. The S.H.O. deputed A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh (PW 13) and some Constables in a jeep to Gaajsar A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh reached Gaajsar and found Panna Ram Tulsa Ram lying unconscious. Their condition was becoming precarious He took them in the jeep to Government Hospital, Churu. PW 10 Dr. R.K. Mathur examined Panna Ram and declared him dead. Tulsa Ram was admitted for treatment in the hospital. Gillu Ram (PW 1) went to the police station and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 1-45 p.m. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The S.H.O. Manphool Singh (PW 14) went to the hospital and prepared the in quest of Panna Ram’s dead body. He also seized and seated the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and Tulsa Ram. The post mortem examination of the victim’s dead body was conducted in the afternoon on the same day by Dr. R.K. Mathur PW 10. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:
External:
(1) Incised wound scalp right front to parietal region parallel to the saggital sagture 3-1/2″ x 1/2″ x 1″ right black eye;
(2) Haematoma over the left temporal region of the size 4″ x 3″;
(3) Abrasion over the right frontal eminence 1-1/4″ just anterior to the injury No. 1;
(4) Abrasion 1″ x 1/2″ over the left arm 2″ above the lateral epicondile with swelling extending from the middle of the arm to the middle of the forearm;
Internal:
(1) There was oblique fracture of skull liner extending from left parietal region to temporal region;
(2) Supra condyle fracture of the humerous;
(3) Sub-dural haemetoma over the tempo-parietal region;
(4) Extra-dural haematoma on the left side, left parietal region.
The incised wound was found caused by some sharp-edged weapon like Barchhi while the remaining injuries were opined to have been caused by some blunt object. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of Panna Ram was due to the left side extra-dural haematoma and sub-dural haematoma on the right side of the brain. The doctor was also of the opinion that injuries found on the victim’s dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He was further of the opinion that injuries No. 1 and 2 were also individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P. 10.
4. Or. Mathur also examined the injuries found on the person of Tulsa Ram and noticed the following:
(1) Lacerated wound on the skull 2″ x 1/4″ x 1/2″. It was on the scalp parietal region slightly obliquely with irregular margins;
(2) Lacerated wound on the left maxillary region of the size 1/4″ x 1/4″ x 1/4″:
(3) Abrasion on the radial border right fore-arm middle size 2″ x 1/2″;
(4) Lacerated wound with swelling over the dorsum of the right hand over the shaft of second metacarpal bone. It was ‘L’ shaped and was of the size of 1/2″ x 1/2″ x 1/2″ and the vertical limb of the ‘L’ shaped wound is 1″ long;
(5) Lacerated wound with swelling over the ulna border of the left fore-arm nearly 6″ below the olecranio process oblique in direction of the size 1″ x 1/4″ x t/2″;
(6) Lacerated wound with swelling over the ulna border of left forearm 2″ below the injury No. 5. This is oblique in direction of the size of 1/4″ x 1/4″ x 1/2″;
(7) Abrasion over the lateral aspect of the left leg lower 1/3rd region of the size 1″ x 1/2″;
(8) Bruise 3″ x 4″ over the left lower ribs obliquely posteriorly;
(9) Bruise with swelling obliquely extending from the head of fibula laterally downwards and medial of the left calf region size 3″ x 1″;
(10) Bruise with swelling 2″ x 1″ over the right calf region oblique of the size 2″ x 1.”
All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon The X-ray examination of his injuries further revealed the fractures of left ulna and second metacarpal bone of left hand. The injury reports issued by him are Ex. P. 16 and Ex. P. 17.
5. The injuries of Smt. Nathi were examined on September 10, 1979 by Dr. B.L. Soni (PW 11). He found the following injuries:
(1) Abrasion 1/4″ x 1/8″ on the dorsum of right hand;
(2) Abrasion 1/4″ x 1/8″ on the dorsum of right hand;
(3) Abrasion 1/8″ x 1/8″ on the dorso-lateral aspect of right wrist joint;
(4) Defused swelling on the dorsum of the right hand.
All the injuries were simple caused by some blunt object. The injury report issued by the doctor is Ex. P. 19. He also examined accused Mohan Ram and found the following injuries on his person:
(1) Lacerated wound 1″ x 1/8″ x bone deep on the scalp of parietal eminence.
The injury was simple caused by some blunt object. The injury report prepared by him is Ex. P. 18
6. The appellants were arrested and in consequence of the informations furnished by them, weapons of the crime recovered. Accused Mohan Ram, at the time of his arrest, was wearing shirt (Article 3). Some stains of blood were detected on it. It was, therefore, seized and sealed. On the completion of the investigation, the police presented a challan against the four appellants in the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323 and 452, 1PC against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Chhotu Ram Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram denied their presence in the incident and pleaded that they were at some different place. Accused Mohan Ram gave altogether another version of the incident. In his statement Under Section 313, Cr. PC he stated that after their conviction Under Section 447 IPC the deceased Panna Ram distributed sweets and came to his house. He shouted aloud ‘Your son-in-law has arrived’ (TUMARA JAVAI AA GAYA HAI). Saying so, he struck blow of lathi on his head. The accused further stated that he snatched away that lathi from Panna Ram. Meanwhile, Tulsa Ram and his wife also came there Tulsa Ram struck a blow of his lathi on his (accused’s) back. His wife came there. There was an exchange of blows between Tulsa Ram and his wife Nathi on one and his (accused’s) wife on the other side. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no substance in the defence put forward by the appellants. The prosecution case was taken substantially true and the charges duly proved against all of them. They were, therefore convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the four accused have filed this joint appeal.
7. We have heard Mr. D.K. Parihar learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully.
8. Mr. Parihar learned Counsel for the appellants did not challenge the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Mathur and PW 11 Dr. Soni about the cause of death of Panna Ram and the number and nature of the injuries sustained by Tulsa Ram and Smt. Nathi. We have also gone through the statements of these two doctors and find no reasons to distrust what they deposed. We, therefore, need not discuss their evidence as it has not been challenged or assailed before us by any of the parties. Suffice it to say that the death of Panna Ram was not natural but it was homicidal. The injured Tulsa Ram sustained multiple injuries, two of which were grievous.
9. In respect of the actual incident, the prosecution examined six witnesses, viz., PW 1 Gillu Ram, PW 2 Tulsa Ram, PW 3 Thand Ram, PW 4 Smt. Nathi, PW 5 Chimna and PW 9 Khinva Ram Two of them, namely, PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi are the injured persons, who sustained injuries in this very incident. They are husband and wife. PW 1 Gillu Ram is their son. PW 3 Thand Ram, PW 5 Chimna Ram and PW 9 Khinva Ram are the persons who claimed to have arrived on the spot on hearing the cries of Smt. Nathi. The learned Sessions Judge, after an elaborate and detailed scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, held that the claim of PW 3 Thand Ram, PW 5 Chimna Ram and PW (SIC) Khinva Ram to have seen the incident and the appellants’ landing blows to the victims, is unfounded and untrue. These three witnesses arrived on the spot only after the incident had taken place. The learned Sessions Judge, however, placed implicit faith and reliance on the evidence of PW 1 Gillu Ram, PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi. We may state at once that in case the evidence of these three witnesses is accepted as true and reliable, there can be no escape for the appellants and their conviction must then be maintained.
10. Mr. Parihar vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 Gillu Ram, PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi is not of that category, on which absolute faith and reliance can be placed It was argued that all of them are closely related inter-se. Their relations with the appellants were not happy. The statement of PW 2 Tulsa Ram was recorded by the Magistrate just after the incident. This statement is Ex. D 2. In this statement, Tulsa Ram stated the presence only of the accused Chhotu Ram and Mohanram. He did not state that appellants Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram also came to his house and wielded the weapons. Later on he changed and improved the version and added the names of the appellants Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid omission of the names of Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram in Ex. D 2, it cannot be positively said that they had also gone to the place of the incident and participated in it.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that when statement Ex. D 2 of Tulsa Ram was recorded, he was not in a fit state. He had received as many as ten injuries, some of which were grievous. Since he was not in a fit condition, undue importance should not be given to the statement Ex. D 2. It was further submitted that the appellants are the real brothers of PW 2 Tulsa Ram As such, it cannot be expected from him, his wife and son that they would falsely implicate them. PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi are the injured witnesses. The incident had taken place in the court-yard of their house, where their presence was most natural. The appellant had a strong motive against the deceased. They were convicted only two days before the incident. The counter-story put forward by the accused-appellant Mohan Ram is palpably absurd and false. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration.
12. Needless to say that PW 1 Gillu Ram, PW 5 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi are closely related inter-se. Tulsa Ram and Smt. Nathi are husband and wife while Gillu Ram is their son. Their evidence cannot be rejected merely on this ground of relationship, although the relationship may be a ground for scrutinizing their evidence more critically and carefully. It may be pointed out that the deceased Panna Ram was not related to them in any way. The occurrence had taken place in the court-yard of the house of these witnesses. When the site was inspected by the Investigating Officer, blood was found scattered at various places in the court-yard as shown in the site inspection memo Ex. P. 2-A. The blood-stained soil was lifted and on chemical examination, it was found smeared with human blood, vide report Ex. P. 35 of the Serologist. We have therefore, no hesitation to say that the incident took place in the court-yard of these witnesses and not out-side the house of accused Mohan Ram as stated by him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The presence of PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi in their house at the time of the incident was, thus, quite natural. They are injured persons and as such also their presence is not open to any doubt. The site plan Ex. P. 2 shows that a well is situate a few feet away from the house of these witnesses PW 1 Gillu Ram stated that he went to the well to fetch water and saw the appellants entering his house. From the well, he saw the incident. Accused Chothu Ram had a Barchhi and three other appellants had Lathies. Chothu Ram struck blows with his Barchhi to his father Tulsa Ram and on the head of the deceased-victim Panna Ram. Thereafter, the remaining three appellants started landing blows to his father and Panna Ram. His mother Smt. Nathi came to intervene and fell on Tulsa Ram to save him from being further beaten. She was also not spared and was struck blows by the appellants, who had Lathies. The witness further stated that he raised the cries and some other persons came The appellants thereafter ran away. The claim of this witness to have seen the incident does not appear to be unfounded or false. His presence on the well situate nearly his house is quite natural and is not open to any doubt He has further stated that from the well the court-yard of his house, where the incident took place, is clearly visible.
13. PW 1 Gillu Ram. PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi were cross examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from them which may render any help to the appellants. While assessing and evaluating their evidence, it should not be lost sight of that the appellants are the real brothers of PW 2 Tulsa Ram, his wife Smt. Nathi and son Gillu Ram would, therefore, be last persons to falsely implicate the appellants and that too on a grave charge of murder for causing the death of Panna Ram, who was not related to them in any way. The FIR of the incident was lodged within a few hours of the occurrence. This report was lodged by PW 1 Gillu Ram. It is a detailed report in which the incident has been described in details. Had he not seen the incident, all these details could not have been mentioned in it. The names of all the appellants have been mentioned there in and also which of them was having Barchhi and which was having a Lathi, The learned Sessions Judge scrutinized and scanned their evidence in details. He found them reliable. On a careful scrutiny of what they deposed, we are unable to take a view different from that taken by the trial court, formal presumption is that what has been deposed by a witness on oath is true unless and until it has been shaken or shattered in cross-examination. The evidence of these three witnesses could not be successfully impeached or shaken.
14. Mr. Parihar drew our attention to Tulsa Ram’s statement Ex. D 2 recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. on the very day of the incident. It was argued that in Ex. D 2, Tulsa Ram did not even mention the names of accused Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram. This omission in Ex. D 2 makes the prosecution story highly doubtful as against them. We have examined the contention and find no force in it. Ex. P. 17 is the injury report of Tulsa Ram which shows that he had received as many as ten injuries, some of which were grievous. He was, therefore, not in a fit and proper mental condition to give a full and elaborate narration of the incident. Ex. D 2 was got registered as there was a great apprehension of the death of Tulsa Ram. Therefore, the omission of the names of appellants Sohan Ram and Ratna Ram in Ex. D 2 is not fatal to throw away the prosecution case against them, especially when there is the direct evidence of PW 1 Gillu Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi. It appears that when Tulsa Ram gave the statement Ex. D 2, he was not in proper senses.
15. It was next contended by Mr. Parihar that the FIR Ex. P. 1 is ante-timed document. It was argued that when a telephonic message contained in Ex. P. 23A was received at the police station, the S.H.O. deputed A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh and some police constables to the spot. Raghuveer Singh and the police party went in a jeep and arrived at the place of incident. He found Tulsa Ram and the deceased Panna Ram unconscious He took them in a jeep to Government hospital. It was argued that as per statement of PW 1 Gillu Ram, the A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh stayed at the place of the incident for five/seven minutes. The police party asked them about the incident which was narrated to them by him and his parents. It was argued that what they stated to the police party on the spot should have been reduced into writing should have been treated as the First Information Report. We find no merit in the contention. Gillu Ram positively stated in cross-examination that the police party did not record their statement at the spot. It appears that when the police party along with the A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh arrived on the spot, they tried to find out as to what type of incident had taken place because the telephonic message was vague and cryptic. This attempt to know-how made by the police party in no, way can be treated to be the First Information Report. It is interesting to note that the A.S.I. Raghuveer Singh (PW 13) was not cross-examined on this point. There is nothing on record to show that Ex. P. 1 is an ante-timed document. In the site plan Ex. P. 2, site inspection note Ex. 2-2-A and inquest report Ex. P. 24, which were prepared without delay, the number of the First Information Report and the title of the case as “State of Rajasthan v. Chotu Ram and Ors.” have been mentioned. This could not have been done unless a case was registered at the police station against the appellants. It may further be pointed out that the FIR Ex. P. 1 was received in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Churu on September 9, 1979 i. e. on the very day of the incident. The immediate receipt of the FIR Ex. P. 1 in the court eliminates all doubts about its genuineness and authenticity. If FIR Ex. P. 1 was ante-timed, it could not have been received in the Magistrate’s court on the very day of the incident. We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the contention of Mr. Parihar that the FIR Ex. P. 1 is an ante-timed document or was brought into existence after when the investigation had started.
16. The next contention, which in our opinion is the principal one, raised by Mr. Parihar is that Section 34, I.P.C. was wrongly invoked and applied. It was argued that it was accused Chothu Ram who had a Barchhi and who struck a blow with it on the head of Panna Ram causing his death. It was this head injury inflicted by accused Chothu Ram which caused the death of Panna Ram. The infliction of the fatal injury was the individual act of Chothu Ram and he alone is, therefore, responsible for causing that injury. The remaining three accused could not be fastened with the vicarious and constructive liability for this injury. There are no circumstances to show that the appellants had formed a common intention to kill Panna Ram or that Panna Ram was done to death in furtherance of the common intention of all. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the contention and find it completely bizarre and barred of force. The evidence of PW 1 Gillu Ram PW 2 Tulsa Ram and PW 4 Smt. Nathi unerringly show that the accused persons went together to the house of Tulsa Ram, each armed with a lathi weapon Chothu Ram had a Barchhi and the remaining three had lathies Chothu Ram struck a blow with his Barchhi on the head of Panna Ram. The medical evidence shows that Panna Ram sustained four injuries one by a Barchhi and the remaining three by lathies. PW 10 Dr. Mathur stated that injury No. 2, inflicted by a lathi and injury No. 2 caused by a Barchhi, were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is, thus, clear that the cause of death of Panna Ram was not only the Barchhi blow but also the lathi blows.
17. The appellants had a strong motive against their target Panna Ram. Panna Ram filed a complaint against all of them resulting in their conviction only two days before this incident, vide the judgment Ex. P. 36 dated September 7, 1979. The incident took place on September 9, 1979 The appellants were already having strained relations with Panna Ram as he had purchased the field and was cultivating it. He purchased this field from Tulsa Ram. This conviction further fanned the fire and the appellants got annoyed and irked. Judgment Ex. P. 36 ignited them to finish Panna Ram.
18 Whether the crime was committed in furtherance of the common intention of the culprits, is a question of fact. Direct evidence about the formation of the common intention is seldom available A common intention is generally gathered from the whole conduct of all the persons concerned and not only from an individual act of one of them. To find a common intention, the facts and circumstances, which are generally taken into consideration, are: how the occurrence started, the individual acts of the participants, their conduct immediately before and after the occurrence and the nature of the weapons wielded by them. It is the over all view of the occurrence that should be weighed and considered in an attempt to find out the common intention of the culprits. It is true that the common intention should not be lightly or readily inferred. It must be a necessary and inevitable inference from the circumstances of a case. In Ramaswami Ayyangar and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:
The essence of Section 34, IPC is the simultaneous consensus of the mind of all the persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result.
When more than one person intrude into the house armed with lethal weapons like Barchhi and lathies, make a joint and concerted attack on unarmed and defence-less victims, the weapons are freely wielded on the victim causing injuries to him on vital and vulnerable parts like head etc. and the miscreants thereafter disperse together, it would be then perfectly legitimate to infer that the victim was done to death in furtherance of the common intention. Here in the instant case, the appellants armed with Barchhi and lathies intruded into the cause of Tulsa Ram where their target Panna Ram was sitting. They had strong motive against him. They made a joint and concerted attack on Panna Ram and inflicted injuries on his head with lathies and Barchhi. They thereafter dispersed together. All these facts and circumstances, taken together, leave no room for doubt that the appellants had formed a common intention to commit the murder of Panna Ram. This common intention was shared by each of them. Here the mode of attack by the appellants on the helpless Panna Ram unerringly indicates that they were animated with the intention of killing him. Section 34, IPC was thus, rightly applied against the appellants The contention that Section 34 IPC could not have been brought into play, has thus no force.
19. A feeble and faint attempt was made by Mr. Parihar to raise the plea of private defence. It was argued that when accused Mohan Ram arrested, he had one injury (vide report Ex. P. 18). It was argued that the offence, according to him, had taken place at his house. This injury has not been explained by the three ocular witnesses. The presence of injury on the person of accused Mohan Ram highly probabilities that the complainant party was the aggressor and made an assault on accused Mohan Ram. Accused Mohan Ram and the remaining appellants were, therefore, within their rights to use violence to beat back the attack. The contention is untenable. The injury caused to appellant Mohan Ram, as mentioned in Ex. P 18, is a simple injury caused by some blunt object with the dimension 3/4″ x 1/2″ x bone deep When a joint and concerted attack is made by the assailants, it is not impossible that those who have been attacked would try to protect themselves and in that process minor injury may be sustained by any of the culprits. The site-plan, as discussed earlier, shows that human blood was found in the court-yard of PW 2 Tulsa Ram. It is that place where the incident took place. There is no material on record to show that the incident had taken place in or out-side the house of accused Mohan Ram. A right of private defence cannot be made out only on surmises or conjectures. There should be material direct or circumstantial in proof of it. From the presence of a mere simple injury of insignificant nature, we are unable to infer that the appellants acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of person. The contention, therefore, fails.
20. Not her contention was raised.
21. From what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/34, IPC. etc. No interference is called for.
22. In the result, the appeal of accused Chotu Ram, Mohan Ram, Sohan Ram and Ratan Ram is dismissed. Accused Chotu Ram and Mohan Ram are already undergoing the sentences. Accused Sohan Ram and Ratan Ram are on bail. They are directed to surrender within a month from today in the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu to serve out the unexpired portion of their sentences. In case they fail to do so, the learned Sessions Judge shall get them arrested and commit them to prison for the aforesaid purpose.
