IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

 

Criminal Appeal No. S-55 of 2020.

 

 

Appellant:                     Ghulam Umar son of Illahi Bux Gopang

Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri,Advocate.

 

 

Complainant:                Mst. Farzana Gopang,

Through Mr. Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate,

 

 

The State:                      Through Mr. Muhammad Noonari,

Deputy Prosecutor General.

 

 

Date of hearing:            05-11-2020

Date of Decision:          05-11-2020

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J.Through this criminal appeal, appellant Ghulam Umer Gopang, has called in question the judgment dated 16.09.2020, passed by learned I-Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kambar in Sessions Case No.129/2020, (re: State V/s Noor Hussain and others), culminated from Crime No. 37/2020 of P.S. Kambar City, for the offence under Sections 302,114,148,149 P.P.C, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302(b), 148 P.P.C r/w Section 149 P.P.C in terms of Section 265-H(ii) Cr.P.C and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment as Ta’azir for offence punishable u/s 320(b) P.P.C r/w Section 149 P.P.C with directions to compensate the bereaved family of deceased to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in terms of Section 544-A Cr.P.C in case of non-payment thereof aforesaid compensation amount, appellant shall suffer S.I for six months more as well as to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence punishable u/s 148 P.P.C and in case of non-payment thereof to undergo S.I for two months.

2.                           Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Mst. Farzana Gopang lodged the F.I.R at P.S. Kamber City stating that there is enmity in between them and accused party.On 03.03.20202 at 5-30 PM, she along with her husbandAbdul Wahab @ Amanullah (now deceased), daughter Hinaand mother in law Mst. Razia came out of their housesituated at Kambar and saw that six identified accused, namely, Abdul Malik son of Abdul Khalique, MuhammadAyoob son of Rahim Bux, Muhammad Ramzan, Roshan bothsons of Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor, Noor Hassan both sonsof Ali Hassan all by caste Gopang r/o Gopang MuhallaKamber and an unknown accused with un-muffled faceswere standing. At the instigation of accused Roshanand Abdul Ghafoor, four identified accused, namely,Abdul Malik, Muhammad Ayoob, Muhammad Ramzan and Noor Hussain,duly armed with pistols, one by one made fires withtheir pistols straight at complainant's husband Abdul Wahab @ Amanullah Gopang intending to commit his murder,which respectively hit him at his chest, back bone,right and left kidney, thigh, elbow of right arm andwrist of right hand, who succumbed to injuries on thespot. Thereafter the complainant lodged the F.I.R at Police Station.

3.                           A.S.1 Arbab Wadho submitted final challan showing accused Noor Hussain and Roshan under custody and rest of the accused as absconders in the court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II Kamber, who having declared accused Abdul Malik, Muhammad Ayoob, Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Ghafoor as proclaimed offenders, sent up the R. & Ps. to the trial court. The trial court supplied the police papers to three accused and also framed the formal charge against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.                           The prosecution in order to prove its case, examinedDr. Javed Sattar Bhatti, PW-1 Ex.6, who produced in evidence original inquest form and post mortem report of deceased Abdul Wahab@ Amanullah Gopang at Ex.6/A & 6/B. Corpse bearer PC/204 Zubair Ahmed PW-2 Ex.7, who produced in evidence attested P.S copy of receipt at Ex. 7/A.LNC/313 Nabi Bux Magsi mashir of arrest PW-3 at Ex.8 who produced in evidence attested P.S copy of memo of arrest of accused Noor Hussain & recovery of un-licensed crime weapon from him and memo of arrest of accused Roshan Gopang at Ex.8/A and 8/B. Author of FIR and I.0 A.S.I Arbab Ali Wadho (PW-4) Ex.9, who produced in evidence attested P.S copy of entry No.30 dated 3.3.2020 in respect of intimation about murder of Abdul Wahab @ Amanullah and departure from P.S and arrival entry No.32 dated 3.3.2020, mashirnama of arrest of inspection of dead body of deceased and injuries sustained by him, Danishnama, memo of arrest and recovery of unlicensed crime weapon viz pistol of 30 bore with magazine and three lived bullets from accused Noor Hussain Gopang, attested P.S copy of F. I.R related entries No. 10 and 11 dated 4.3.2020, F.I.R crime No.37 of 2020 u/s 302, 114, 148, 149 P.P.C, F.I.R No.40 of 2020 u/s 24 SAA 2013, spy information departure entry No. 13 dated 6.3.2020 (1330 hours), arrival entries no. 14 and 15 (1500&1530 hours), dated 8.3.2020, arrival entry No.13 (1700 hours), dated 8.3.2020 showing arrest of accused Roshan Gopang, Ballistic expertReport bearing No.FSL/FD/LRK at Ex.9/A to 9/M.Tapedar Irshad Soomro PW-5, Ex.10, who produced in evidence original site sketch at Ex.10/A.Complainant Mst. Farzana Gopang (widow) at Ex.11, she saw F.I.R at Ex.11/F and confirmed its contents, Correctness and her signature and signature of author. Eye witness and mashir Mst. Hina (daughter of complainant) PW-7, Ex.12.Thereafter the learned DDPP for the State closed the side of prosecution.

5.                           Trial Court recorded statements of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the prosecution allegations by submitting that prosecution evidence is false, they are innocent and have been implicated due to old murderous enmity, they neither examined on oath in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C nor produced any witness in their defence.

6.                           After assessment of evidence, learned trial court has passed the above impugned judgment and convicted the appellant/accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant above named has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

7.                           Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and failed to evaluate and assess the evidence laid at the trial; that the learned trial court has erred both on law and facts of the case; that no independent witness has been cited though it is day time incident and all the witnesses are related with each other and they are interested, set-up, hostile, partisan, hence their testimony requires corroboration from an independent and un-impeachable source, which is lacking in the case; that there are material contradictions in the testimony of complainant and witnesses, hence their evidence is full of doubts, defects, improvements and lacunas; that there is unexplained delay of about 17 hours in lodgment of FIR and inspite of delay, the name of appellant Ghulam Umar does not find place in the FIR as well as in 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws Mst. Razia and Mst. Hina recorded on 04.03.2020 but his name was disclosed by the complainant Mst. Farzana and P.Ws Mst. Hina in their belated further statements dated 15.03.2020, viz after delay of 11 days and they have also not assigned any role to have taken in the incident and he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or to the complainant party; that even in their depositions the complainant and P.W Mst. Hina have also not attributed any role to the appellant except his mere presence and no motive was assigned against him; that there is no recovery of crime weapon whatsoever from the appellant Ghulam Umar and there is no tangible evidence on record against the appellant. In the end, learned counsel has prayed for acquittal of the appellant/accused.

8.                           On the contrary, learned advocate for the complainant has contended that prosecution has proved its case by producing reliable and trustworthy evidence, which was corroborated by medical evidence; that both the eye witnesses have fully implicated the present appellant; that eye witnesses identified the appellant in the court while recording their evidence with specific role of his presence at the spot; that death of the deceased is undisputed and defence was failed to create any dent in the prosecution case. Lastly he prayed that appeal of the appellant may be dismissed.

9.                           Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that learned trial court passed the judgment with reasoning; that prosecution established all the charges against appellant; that no major contradiction was pointed out by the advocate for the appellant; that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and by supporting the impugned judgment he prayed that appeal of the appellant may be dismissed.

10.                       I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

11.                       P.W-1 Dr. Javed Sattar was examined, who supported the case of prosecution and according to his opinion, the death of deceased was occurred due to hemorrhage and shock and further state that injury No.1 individually and or collectively are sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries are anti-mortemin nature and caused by fire arm (bullet) injuries. P.W-2 P.C Zubair Ahmed was examined who received dead body of deceased from ASI Arbab Ali for postmortem, and after the postmortem handed over the same to the complainant Mst. Farzana. P.W-3 LNC Nabi Bux was examined, he was eye witness and mashir of the arrest and recovery from Noor Hussain. P.W-5 Irshad (Tapedar) was examined by the prosecution, who prepared the site sketch of place of incident of the present case and produced the same as at Ex.10-A.

12.                       P.W-4 Arbab Ali, the investigation officer of the case was also examined, who was also author of the FIR and deposed that on 03.03.2020, he was posted as ASI P.S Kambar City, he received message through telephone that murder of one Abdul Wahab has been committed, therefore, he left P.S along with his subordinate staff and proceeded towards Civil Hospital Kambar under the D.D entry, where the dead body of Abdul Wahab was lying on the table. He deposed that he appointed Iqra and Hina as mashir and in their presence inspected dead body and found that his clothes viz. shalwar and Kameez were stand with blood and one fire arm injury was found on left side of chest (through and through), one fire arm injury on right side of chest (through and through), one fire arm injury on back side of kidney (through and through), one fire arm injury near the backbone (through and through), one injury on back of right side of kidney (through and through), one fire arm injury on right side of buttock (through and through), one injury on right side of elbow (through and through) and one injury on right side of wrist (through and through). All the injuries were bleeding, he therefore, prepared such memo of inspection of dead body, Danishnama and lash chakas form in presence of same mashirs and obtained their signatures. Hedeposed that hehanded over the dead body of deceased to P.C Zubair Ahmed along with lash chakas form for conducting the postmortem. He further deposed that on the same day, viz. 03.03.2020, he along with same staff, complainant as well as same mashirs went to place of incident situated near the house of complainant, where hecollected the blood stained earth of deceased and 10 empties of 30 bore T.T pistol, which he sealed separately and prepared such memo, which were signed bythe same mashirs. He deposed that P.C Zubair came at P.S and handed over the receipt of handing over the dead body to the complainant along with blood stained cloths of deceased to him and he recorded such statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. On the following day viz. 04.03.2020, he was present at police station, where Mst. Farzana appeared and narrated the facts of murder of her husband at the hands of accused Noor Hussain and others and he registered the FIR vide crime No.37/2020, thereafter he recorded statements of eye witnesses, namely, Mst. Razia and Hina u/s 161 Cr.P.C, issued letter to Mukhtiarkar concerned for preparation of site sketch. Sent blood recovered earth of deceased to Sindh Forensic D.N.A and Serology Laboratory Karachi for examination and report which he received in positive. He deposed that on 06.03.2020, he arrested accused Noor Hussain and recovered one pistol with magazine from folder of his shalwar which he unloaded and found that its magazine was loaded with live bullets of 30 bore. He sealed the same in separate parcels, prepared such mashirnama, brought the accused at police station, where FIR Crime No.40/2020 U/S 24 S.A.A 2013 was registered. He further deposed that he sent recovered pistol, 3 live bullets, ten empties of 30 bore T.T pistol and five live bullets of 30 bore to F.S.L Forensic Science Division Larkana through SDPO Kambar on 10.03.2020 for examination and report, which he received report dated 13.03.2020 and same was positive. He further deposed that on 08.03.2020, he arrested accused Roshan @ Muhammad Gopang in presence of mashir P.C Nabi Bakhsh and P.C Saifullah, prepared such memo and then he concluded investigation of both the cases and submitted the challan before the court having jurisdiction.

13.                       P.W-6 Mst. Farzana (complainant and eye witness) deposed that on 03.03.2020, she along with her husband Abdul Wahab @ Amanullah (deceased), her daughter Hina and her mother in law Mst. Razia left her house and came out of the house at about 05-30 p.m, she saw that seven persons were standing outside of her house and she identified them as Abdul Malik son of Abdul Khalique, Muhammad Ayoob son of Rahim Bux, Muhammad Ramzan and Roshan both sons of Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor and Noor Husain, both sons of Ali Hassan, all by caste Gopang, resident of Gopang Muhalla, Kambar, whereas she not known about the name of seventh unknown accused, which she identified later-on and came to know that his name was Ghulam Umar son of Illahi Bux Gopang, resident of Gopang Muhalla Kambar. She further deposed that in their presence, accused Abdul Ghafoor and Roshan instigated the other accused to commit murder of her husband Abdul Wahab in revenge of murder of Abdul Khalique Gopang. She further deposed that on the instigation, accused Abdul Malik Gopang made two fires with his pistol straightly at her husband Abdul Wahab, which hit him at his chest, accused Muhammad Ayoob Gopang made three fires with his pistol straightly at her husband with intention to commit his murder, which also hit him at chest as well as backbone, accused Ramzan Gopang also made three fires from his pistol straightly at her husband with intention to commit his murder, which hit him at right and left side of kidney as well as thigh of right leg and accused Noor Hussain Gopang made two fires from his pistol straightly at her husband with intention to commit his murder, which hit him at elbow of right arm and wrist of right hand. Due to such fires, her husband raised cries and was bleeding and fell down on the ground. The accused person then escaped their good. She with witnesses checked her husband and found dead. She took dead body towards Civil Hospital Kambar and also intimated police of police station Kambar City. ASI Arbab Ali along with other police officials reached at Civil Hospital Kambar and inspected the dead body of deceased in presence of Hina and Iqra. ASI Arbab also prepared such Danishnama, lash chakas form as well as memo and took signatures of the mashirs. She deposed that police inspected the place of incident on her pointation in presence of said mashirs, wherefrom police collected blood stained earth and ten empties of 30 bore T.T pistol, which were sealed separately and memo was prepared at the spot. She further deposed that during investigation of the case, she came to know that 7th unknown accused who participated in the crime with other accused on 03.03.2020 was Ghulam Umar son of Illahi Bux Gopang, resident of Gopang Muhalla Kambar and she went to police station where her statement in this regard was recorded.. She during cross examination admitted by replying that “It is also correct to suggest that Illahi Bux (father of accused Ghulam Umar) is also our relative. It is correct to suggest that all accused were previously known to me. It is correct to suggest that name of accused Ghulam Umar Gopang is neither mentioned in FIR lodged by me nor statements of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 04.03.2020”. She in the entire evidence not stated a single word that the present appellant participated in the occurrence and no role has been assigned to him.

14.              P.W-7 Mst. Hina was examined by the prosecution. She deposed that on 03.03.2020, she along with her father Abdul Wahab @ Amanullah, her mother Mst. Farzana and her grandmother Mst. Razia left their house and came out from the house at about 05-30 p.m and saw that seven persons were standing outside of her house, she identified them as Abdul Malik son of Abdul Khaliq, Muhammad Ayoob son of Rahim Bux, Muhammad Ramzan and Roshan both sons of Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor and Noor Hussain both sons of Ali Hassan, all by caste Gopang, resident of Gopang Muhalla Kambar. She could not know about name of 7th unknown accused, which she identified later-on and came to know that his name was Ghulam Umar son of Illahi Bux Gopang, resident of Gopang Muhalla Kambar. She deposed that in their presence accused Abdul Ghafoor and Roshan instigated other accused to commit murder of her father in revenge of murder of Abdul Khaliq Gopang. She further deposed that on their instigation, accused Abdul Malik Gopang made two fires with his pistol straightly at her father, which hit him at his chest, accused Muhammad Ayoob made three fires withhis pistol straightly on her father, which hit him at chest as well as backbone, accused Ramzan Gopang made three fires withhis pistol straightly at her father Abdul Wahab, which hit him at right and left side of kidney as well as thigh of right leg and accused Noor Hussain Gopang also made two fires from his pistol straightly at her father whichhit him at elbow of right arm and wrist of right hand. She deposed that her father raised cries and was bleeding and fell down on the ground. They raised cries and accused escaped their good. They checked her father and found dead. She during cross examination had admitted by replying that “It is correct to suggest that accused Ghulam Umar is our distant relative. It is correct to suggest that all accused including Ghulam Umar Gopang were previously known to me. Voluntarily says that I was knowing accused Ghulam Umar Gopang but was not familiar with his name at the time of incident and thereafter I came to know about his name. It is correct to suggest that such fact is not mentioned in my statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 04.03.2020, I.O/ASI Arbab Ali recorded my statement and statement of my grandmother Mst. Razia in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is correct to suggest that at the time of the incident did not disclose thename of accused Ghulam Umar to me hence I did not disclose his name in my statement recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C.”

15.              The evidence of above eye witnesses was examined carefully. The complainant not given the name of appellant Ghulam Umar in the FIR nor gave description of said unknown person, however, she after the lapse of 11 days recorded her further statement in which disclosed the name of appellant by specifically stating that she came to known that appellant was involved in the offence with other accused person. She not disclosed the source of said information that how she came to know, from whom she came to know and when she came to know that said unknown person was the appellant Ghulam Umar same position is of the evidence of eye witness Mst. Hina on careful scrutiny of the evidence so also the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C of Mst. Hina it transpired that the name of appellant Ghulam Umar was not transpired nor description of said unknown person were mentioned, however, she also after the lapse of 11 days in her further statement disclosed the name of appellant by specifically stating thatshe came to known that the present appellant was involved in the offence with other accused person. Mst. Hina not disclosed the source of said information that how she came to know, from whom she came to know and when she came to know that said unknown person was the appellant Ghulam Umar.

16.              Name of appellant does not transpired in the FIR nor the descriptions were mentioned in the FIR so also in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, no identification parade of the appellant was conducted.The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of   Mian SOHAIL AHMED and others Versus The STATE and others (2019 S C M R 956), has held as under:-

                        7.         No role was assigned to the suspects by the witnesses, especially when the first information report clearly describes two different roles to the appellants; one that of an assailant, while the other of a driver of a motorcycle who drove the assailant away. If a witness fails to give the description of the part played by the suspect in the crime, the credibility of the witness stands questioned as he fails to complete the picture of the crime scene, thus inviting caution and circumspection in assessing the evidentiary value of the identification evidence. This Court over the years has placed little reliance on such identification evidence. Even in the subsequent identification by the complainant in court, which has little evidentiary value, he failed to point an accusing finger at the appellants to say who did what, therefore the parts played by the appellants in the crime remain a mystery. See: In the matter of Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 SC 488) on the absence of a role assigned by the witness in an identification parade.

 

17.     The identification of accused in the court by the witnesses at the time of recording evidence without other corroborative piece of evidence is weak type of identification, in the present case the accused was previously known to the witnesses and was relative to them, residing in the same muhalla, having inimical terms with the complainant party as has been admitted by the witnesses,in spite of that he was not named in the FIR nor in the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C though the same were recorded on the next day of the incident and the name of the appellant was first time introduced as accused of the present case infurther statement of the complainant and the witnesses which was recorded after the laps of about 11 days. Reliance can be place in the case of JAVED KHAN alias BACHA and another V.The STATE and another (2017 S C M R 524)wherein Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:-

9.         As regards the identification of the appellants before the trial court by Nasir Mehboob (PW-5), Subedar Mehmood Ahmed Khan (PW-6) and Idrees Muhammad (PW-7) that too will not assist the Prosecution because these witnesses had a number of opportunities to see them before their statements were recorded. In State v Farman (PLD 1985 SC 1), the majority judgment of which was authored by Ajmal Mian J, the learned judge had held that an identification parade was necessary when the witness only had a fleeting glimpse of an accused who was a stranger as compared to an accused who the witness had previously met a number of times (page 25V). The same principle was followed in the unanimous judgment of this Court, delivered by Nasir Aslam Zahid J, in the case of Muneer Ahmad v State (1998 SCMR 752), in which case the abductee had remained with the abductors for some time and on several occasions had seen their faces. In the present type of case the culprits were required to be identified through proper identification proceedings, however, the manner in which the identification proceedings were conducted raise serious doubts (as noted above) on the credibility of the process. The identification of the appellants in court by eye-witnesses who had seen the culprits fleetingly once would be inconsequential.

 

17.     The enmity in between the parties was admitted by the complainant party in the FIR so also during the evidence recorded before the trail court, In a case where accused were not nominated in the FIR and were identified during the identification parade without assigning the role the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case ofHAKEEM and others V. The STATE (2017 S C M R 1546), has also held as under:-

4.         It has come on record that there was an old blood feud between the parties, therefore, the possibility that accused were already known to the complainant cannot be ruled out yet neither the present appellants nor the petitioner were nominated in the FIR except Ramzan son of Allah Bux. They were picked up by the prosecution witnesses in the identification parade. As to the identification parade, the same was not held in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Police Rules, 1934. The Rule 26.32(1)(d) inter alia require "the suspects shall be placed among other persons similarly dressed and of the same religion and social status, in the proportion of 8 or 9 such persons to one suspect. Each witness shall then be brought up separately to attempt his identification. Care shall be taken that the remaining witnesses are " still kept out of sight and hearing and that no opportunity is permitted for communications to pass between witnesses who have been called up and those who have not." PW-5, Imdad Ali, Assistant Mukhtiarkar, Mirpursakro, in whose presence the identification parade was conducted, has stated in his deposition that he arranged 22 dummies. He deposed "the accused persons namely Ghulam Mustafa, Bodo, Noor Mohammad, Khuda Bux, Usman, Hakim and Imdad were mixed up in the row with damies (sic) according to their choice and thereafter the complainant Wali Muhammad and PWs Jan Mohammad and Abdullah picked them up from the row." So in-fact seven accused were lined up with dummies for identification. Furthermore, during the identification parade, no specific role played in the incident was assigned to any particular accused. This Court in the case of Azhar Mehmood v. State (2017 SCMR 135) has held that in an identification parade, if the accused were identified without reference to any role played by them in the incident, the same is of no evidentiary value. A quote from the judgment of Azhar Mehmood's case is as follows:-

"We have gone through the statements made by the supervising Magistrates, i.e. PW5 and PW10 as well as the proceedings of the test identification parades and have straightaway noticed that in the said parades the present appellants had not been identified with reference to any role played by them in the incident in issue. It has consistently been held by this Court that such a test identification parade is legally laconic and is of no evidentiary value and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Khadim Hussain v. The State (1985 SCMR 721), Ghulam Rasul and 3 others v. The State (1988 SCMR 557), Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others (1992 SCMR 2088), Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another (1995 SCMR 127), Siraj-ul-Haq and another v. The State (2008 SCMR 302), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563) and Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State (2012 SCMR 522)"

 

18.     None of the witness stated a single word in the FIR, statement under section 161 Cr.P.C or in the further statement recorded after 11 days of the incident so also during their evidence recorded before the trail court that the present appellant shared common intention with the co-accused for committing  murder of the deceased even no role has been assigned against the appellant in these circumstances the presence of the appellant at the time and place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is highly doubtful.

19.     As discussed above, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.The concept of benefit of the doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country. For giving the accused the benefit of doubtthere does not need to be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right as has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Tariq Pervez v. The State(1995 SCMR 1345).I, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the appellant Ghulam Umarwith the result that the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court vide judgment dated: 16.09.2020are set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of the doubt to him.

19.     These are the reasons of my short order dated: 05-11-2020.

 

                                                         

                                                                                       JUDGE