MUNEER KHAN Versus THE STATE

Munir Khan son of Imam Din was tried by the learned IVth Additional District and Sesslous Judge, Karachi (West) for offences under section 302/307, P.P.C. for the murder of Shamsul Haq, deceased, and causing simple injury to Mst. Khan." The lied trial Court convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 under section 302, P.P.C. for causing the death of Shamsul Haq and also under section 324, P.P.C. to suffer R.I.for one year for causing injury to Mst. Khairunissa or in default to undergo father R.I. for six months. This appeal has been preferred by the convict abovenamed against his conviction and sentence.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mst. Khairunissa, mother of the deceased Shamsul Haq, lodged FIR at Police Station Aurangi Town on 20‑1‑1977 stating that she alongwith her children and husband resided for the last six years in Aurangi Town, Sector 9/E, House No. 20, Karachi. Shamsul Haq was his elder son and was bachelor. He used to do weaving work at home. For the last few days he was not feeling well and was lying at home. Munir Khan had taken a house on rent m front of her house since t;'.7.montbs back and started living there. Munir Khan and her son Shamsul Haq were on friendly terms with each other. A few days back there arose some minor dispute between them. On 20‑1‑1977 at 4.30 p.m., Munir Khan came near her house and got Shamsul Haq called out through one Ahmed Ali, nephew of Lala, a shopkeeper of the adjoining shop. Shamsul Haq went out of the house. He was taken away by Munir Khan to a little distance when she heard exchange of hot words between them. From the door of her house she saw Munir Khan giving a slap to Shamsul Haq. She thereupon raised alarm as to whir he was beating him and she ran towards him. But, in the meanwhile Munir Khan took out a knife from the fold of his shalwar and started stabbing Shamsul Haq. He inflicted knife blow on his neck and he fell down. ,When Shamsul Haq got up from the ground Munir Khan gave a knife blow on his right thigh. She tried to rescue but Munir Khan gave a knife blow on the wrist of her left hand. Shamsul Haq was bleeding profusely from his injuries and fell down on the ground. Shopkeeper Lala, his nephew Ahmed Ali, Lal Mohammad, Abdul Jabbar and other people of the Mohallah witnessed the incident. Munir Khan then ran into his house. The complainant through Hafizuddin brought Shamsul Haq to Civil Hospital where he died after some time.

3. The police arrested the accused, secured the blood‑stained clothes and knife from him and after due investigation challaned him to face trial as aforesaid. A formal charge under section 302/307, P.P.C. was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4, In all 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial in support 1 Abdur Rahman (Ex.4) deposed that the deceased resided in hiss he was known to him by the name of Buddhoo. On the day of incident he left his shop and came to his house for offering Aser prayer. When he to his shop he saw a crowed. The mother of deceased Buddhoo was crying that his son had been killed. From his shop he noticed that Buddhoo was bleeding. His mother got him removed to hospital through Mohallah people. Later on, he learnt that Buddhoo had died. PW 2 Ahmed Ali (Ex.5) deposed that he knew. both the appellant as well as the deceased, who was residue in front of his house. PW Abdur Rahim is his maternal‑uncle. On the day of incident he had gone to Sadar for getting the watch of his uncle repaired. On his return to his house at spout, 2.00 p.m., he learnt‑about the murder of Shamsul Haq. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was allowed to be cross‑examined A.P.P. During cross‑examination by A.P.P. he refuted the suggestion that on the day of incident accused had met him at about 4.15 p.m., and asked him to call Shamsul Haq deceased from his house or that he called the said deceased from his house. He also denied the suggestion made to him that the appellant had requested him to save him by suppressing the facts of his meeting the accused and had called deceased Shamsul Haq. In answer to a question by the appellant's counsel he stated that the police did not read over the statement to him. PW 3 Mst. Khairunissa (Ex.6) deposed that deceased Shamsul Haq was her son and the appellant was living in a rented house near her house since last two years before the incident. On the day of incident, just before the incident, the appellant called her son through one small boy named Ahmed Ali. His son went out of the house's and after some time upon hearing the appellant talking with her son in harsh tone she went out and in her presence the appellant took out knife and inflicted in all 7 injuries on her son at his head, back and abdomen. She rushed to rescue her son and was given knife injury on her left arm by the appellant. The mother ‑of the appellant took him to their house. Her son had fallen down and had become unconscious. About 2‑4 persons had witnessed the incident but she did not know their names. One eye‑‑witness named Lalu accompanied her and her son on taxi to Civil Hospital where her son was exmined by the doctor. She was also given treatment by the doctor. Later, on, her son died in the hospital. The police came at the hospital and recorded her statement (Ex.6/A). During her cross -examination by the appellant's Advocate she admitted that Bano aged about 20 years was her daughter and that the deceased Shamsul Haq wanted to have Bano married with the appellant. She denied the suggestion that one Ali, a Punjabi, who used to visit her house and maintained her family wanted to marry her said daughter Bano. She also denied the suggestion that any quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the said Ali on the day of incident and that she and her son were given injuries by the said Ali. She also denied that on the day of incident her son was not called by appellant through Ahmed Ali. Ste further denied that she had opposed alleged marriage between her daughter Bano and the appellant and that on that account she had falsely implicated the appellant in this case. P.W. 4 Lai Mohammad alias Lalan (Ex.7) deposed that deceased Shamsul Haq was known to him since his childhood as he was his neighbour. The, appellant was not known to him prior to the day of incident. At the time of incident he was in his house which was about 100 feet away from the place of vardat and was attracted to vardat on the cries of "Bachao"., 'Bachao'‑ tin coming out of his house he saw deceased lying in the lap of his mother, the complainant, and the appellant was running away towards his house with knife in his hand. There was lot of blood around the deceased and he was on the verge of death. The complainant had also an injury on her arm. He alongwith other neighbours took the deceased and complainant to Civil Hospital. Deceased died in the hospital about half an hour of arrival ‑there. He produced Mashirnama of dead body (Ex.7‑A), inquest report (Ex.7‑B). In his cross‑examination he denied the suggestion that he had seen the appellant prior to the day of the incident or that he had come to fill water from public water tap and that he had ever fight with him. He also denk4 that he was falsely deposing against the accused. PW 5 Abdul Jabbar (Ex.8) acted as Mashir of the dead body and the inquest report (Exs. 7‑A and 7‑B respectively). During his examination‑in‑chief he deposed that the names of the accused and deceased were not given to him. During cross‑examination he deposed that about 2 months prior to the incident a fight had taken place over filling of water between PW Lai Mohammad alias Lalan. the appellant and one Sattar. During that fight PW Lai Mohammed and the said attar had threatened the appellant that they would see him. PW 6 Abdul Sattar (Ex.9) was declared hostile. During his cross‑examination by A.P.P. he denied to have seen the appellant causing knife blows to deceased or that he had seen the accused at the vardat being armed with knife and running away to his house after committing the incident. He admitted that police had inspected the vardat on the day of incident in his presence and had secured the blood‑stained earth under Mashirnama (Ex.9/A) which bears his signature. He alto admitted that police had secured the blood‑stained shirt of the complainant in his presence under Mashirnama (Ex. 9/B) which bear his signature. He admitted his signatures on (Ex.9/C) the Mashirnama of seizure of knife on the pointation of the appellant but denied its contents as he had not gone inside the house of the appellant. He admitted his signatures on Ex. 9/D, the memo of recovery of blood‑stained shirt and blood‑stained Shalwar of the appellant. He also produced blood‑stained earth in a tin (Article A), shirt of the complainant (Article B), the knife (Article C), and the blood‑stained clothes of the appellant (Articles D‑1 and D‑2). During cross‑examination by the advocate for the appellant he stated that he is an illiterate and that all the above Mashirnamas were prepared at the police station where his left thumb‑impressions were also obtained. PW 7 Hafizuddin (Ex.10) deposed that the incident had taken place between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m., when he was in his house. After coining out of his house on the commotion he found the deceased lying injured on the ground. At that time he did not see any injury on the person of the complainant. He admitted to have taken the deceased with the complainant an a rickshaw to Civil Hospital. P.W.8 Qamaruddin (Ex.11) had acted as mashir of the scene of offence (Ex.9/A) of seizure of blood‑stained shirt of the complainant (EX. 9/B), memo of seizure of knife (Ex. 9/C) and memo of seizure of blood‑stained clothes of the appellant (Ex. 9/D). He denied to have seen the witness. He stated that police had obtained his signatures on some papers without reading their contents to him. He thus admitted his signatures on the Exs.9/A, 9/B, 9/C and P/D but denied the correctness of their contents. With regard to the articles A,B,C,D‑1 and D‑2 he stated that they were the same which were shown to him at police station. He was declared a hostile witness and allowed to be cross‑examined by A.P.P. PW 9, Head Constable Mohammed Aslam, (Ex‑12) had stood guard over the dead body of Shamsul Haq in the mortuary of Civil Hospital. He handed over the dead body to the doctor for post mortem anal upon receipt of the dead body after the post‑mortem had handed it over to the heirs of the deceased. PW 10 Mohammad Akram A S I (Ex.13), received the statement of complainant Mst. Khairunissa recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. by Israr Ahmed (Ex. 6/A) for lodging the regular F I R. He Produced the regular F I R as Ex.13/A. PW 11 Mohamed Umar (Ex.14) deposed that on the day of incident at about 3.00 p.m., he had gone to the house of the deceased, who was related to him, to inquire about his health. While he was in the house of the deceased a boy came and asked the deceased that he was required by Munir Khan, the appellant. The deceased went out and after some having heard the commotion the complainant went out and soon thereafter called him saying that the deceased was being stabbed by the appellant. He went out and saw the appellant armed with knife who gave a blow on the back of the deceased who fell down. The complainant then went forward to rescue her son but the appellant gave knife blow on her right hand. Then the appellant again gave third blow on the right hand of the deceased. Upon arrival of the several persons of Mohallah at the scene of offence the accused ran away into his house. The complainant and the deceased were then taken to hospital while he remained outside the house of the appellant so that he could not run away. The police then came at the vardat and arrested the appellant. His statement was also recorded by the police. PW 12 Mohammad Yaqoob Farooqui had deposed nothing about the incident. PW 13 Israr Ahmed (EX. 16) was S.I. at Police Station Aurangi Town, Karachi, on the day of incident. He received a telephonic message from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital about the arrival of the injured and the complainant and also about the deceased Shamsul Haq. He went to Civil Hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant under section 164, Cr.P.C (Ex. 6/A) and sent it to police station for registration as regular F.I.R. He also issued formal letter to C.M.O. for performing post‑mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Shamsul Haq and prepared the Mashirnama of dead body (Ex. 7/A) and also the inquest report (Ex.7/B). He admitted his signatures , on the said exhibits. He then handed over the case for further investigation to PW 17 Maqbool Hussain Shah. S H O PW 14 Mohammad Tufail (Ex. 17) is the writer Head Constable who had received six sealed parcels as case property of this case from S.H.0. for keeping them in Malkhana of police station. These parcels were later on sent to chemical analyser for report. PW 15, Dr. Hasan Jawaid (Ex.20) was Medico‑Legal Officer at Civil Hospital. Karachi, who had first received the dead body of the decease! Shamsul Haq on 20‑1‑1977 at 6.00 p.m., and examined him. He found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased.

(1) "Incised wound 1" x 1/2" muscle deep, middle of medial aspect of right thigh bleeding profusely.

(2) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" suspected cavity deep back of right side chest, at the level of 10 th rib.

(3) Incised wound 1 "x 3/4" skin deep on the dorsum of left hand."

And issued a certificate as Ex.20,/A, who also on the same day and at the same time examined complainant Mst. Khairunissa injured and found the following injuries on her person:

"(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" skin deep on left forearm on upper 1/3 portion aspect."

He issued the medical report as Ex. 20/11. PW 16, Maqbool Hussain Shah (Ex. 22) who was S.H.O. Aurangi Town Police Station on 20‑1‑77 investigated the case. He produced the sketch of Vardat prepared by him (Ex.23) and Mashirnama of arrest of accused (Ex.24). He also produced the chemical analysers report Ex.27. He also admitted to have prepared the above referred Mashirnamas Exs 9/A, 9/B, 9/C and 9/D. He also identified the above noted Articles A, B, C, D/1 and D/2. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestion that no Mashir had accompanied rd him to the place of recovery of knife and blood‑stained clothes of accused and that Mashirnamas had been prepared at police station where the signatures of the Mashirs had been obtained. He also repelled the defence suggestion that the knife was foisted upon the appellant by him. PW 17 Dr. Iqbal Ahmed Ex.25 had performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Shamsul Haq. He found the following external injuries on his person.

"(1) 1/W Right side of chest back 2" from mid‑line measuring 1." x 1/2" x cavity deep, horizontal in direction.

(2) 1" left hand dorsum measuring 4" x 1/2" x skin deep oblique in direction.

(3) I/W right thigh middle interior aspect measuring 2" x 1/2" x muscle deep.

(4) I/W left shoulder tip x 3" x 1/4" skin deep, oblique in direction".

On internal examination of the dead body he found that under external injury No. 3 the weapon had passed through the skin soft issue of muscle and of the right thigh going upwards and cutting the femoral artery through and through. There was collection of blood around the vessel. Under external injury No.1 the weapon of assault had entered into the right side of the cavity and caused inside wound of right lung lower part measuring 1" x 1/4" tissue deep x right side chest cavity was full of blood. He opined that external injury No.3 with its internal findings collectively and individually was sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. According to the doctor the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple homicidal stab wounds inflicted by a sharp and pointed weapon like long sharp‑pointed knife, chhuri or any similar weapon of assault. He produced post‑mortem report as Ex.26. PW 18 Dr. Ali Hassan Ex. 32 was C.M.O. of Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. On 2‑11‑1977 at about 9.30 am. he had examined Munir Khan, the accused‑appellant, and found the following injuries on his person.

(1) Incised wound about 1/2" x 1/2" with linear search about 1" on Rt lateral side of wrist extending upto palm. .

(2) Incised wound about 3/4" x 1/4" skin deep on the root of left thumb medically.

(3) Incised wound about 3/4" x 1/4" skin deep on the tip of left middle finger.

(4) Incised wound about 1/2" x 1/4" skin deep on the tip of the left ring' finger.

(5) 2 abraded contusions, of different sizes on right knee joint.

(6) Abraded contusion, 1/4" in diameter on bridge of nose."

In his opinion Injuries No.1 to 4 were caused by sharp weapon and Nos.5 and 6 by hard and blunt substance. All the injuries were simple in nature and were fresh in duration. He produced medical certificate in respect of the above as Ex.33.

5. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court under section 342, C.P.C. denied the prosecution version as incorrect. His case is that he is innocent. Deceased Shamsul Haq was his friend and he wanted to give hand of his sister, Mst. Bano, to him in marriage; whereas his mother Mst. Khairunissa, the complainant was annoyed with him. Therefore, they had dispute with him. Mst. Khairunissa wanted to give hand of her said daughter to one Ali, Punjabi, who used to visit their house but the deceased always insisted that she should be married to him (accused). Other three persons also used to visit her house. He did not know who had killed Shamsul Haq. He had been involved by the complainant in this case due to that enmity. He also stated that he had a dispute with PW Lai Khan on the water tap a few days prior to the incident and he had threatened him that he would see him. He examined in defence two witnesses, namely, PW 1 Mohammed Suleman and P.W.2 Muhammad Najib.

6. I have heard Mr. Nisar Ally, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Masood Shaharyar, learned counsel for the State and have gone through the evidence on record.

7. Mr. Nisar Ally submitted with vehemence that on the solitary evidence of the complainant, who is an interested witness, the conviction could not be sustained unless it is corroborated by substantial reliable evidence and the witness is very reliable. He sought to support his contention by the following authorities .

1. PLD1978SC114.

2. 1987 P Cr.L J 2101 (Peshawar).

3. 1987 P Cr.L J 17 (Karachi).

He then contended that the recovery of knife, the weapon of offence and blood‑stained clothes at the pointation of appellant has not been proved through independent evidence. Only the 1.0. has deposed about it and his evidence cannot be accepted. For this proposition he placed reliance on 1975 P Cr L J 617 (Lahore); 1975 P Cr L J 1096 and P L D 1978 S C 114.

8. The next contention pressed by the learned counsel was that PW 4 Lal Mohomed alias Lala is an interested witness being friend of the deceased. Moreover, he was having enmity with the appellant and had threatened him that he would see him at the time of altercation between him and the appellant about two months before the incident. This fact has been admitted by PW 5, Abdul Jabbar in his cross‑examination. The evidence of PW. 4 Lal Mohomed, according to the counsel, is false and improbable, and prompted by enmity. That the learned trial Court having rightly observed that the evidence of hostile witness loses all its evidentiary value and it could not be used in favour of the prosecution or against it yet the trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.W.6, Abdul Sattar and P.W.8. In doing so the trial Court has fallen into an error and acted against the settled principles of law. The learned counsel then drew my attention to the contradictions between the contents of the F.I.R and the deposition of PW 3, Mst. Khairunissa, the complainant in Court. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the evidence of PW.3 Mst. Khairunissa is held to be reliable then too it was a case of sudden fight and the blade of the knife was only 3 1/2 inches. The injury was also not caused on any vital part of the body and hence it was not a case falling under section 302, P.P.C, but under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. which is punishable with 10 years. In his submission, the appellant has remained in detention for a period of about 3 years during the trial and about a year after conviction and hence it is a case for reduction of sentence. Lastly, the counsel contended that even otherwise the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration the period of three years detention during trial while passing the sentence of imprisonment. In this connection he drew my attention to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in P L D 1980 S.C. 317 and 1985 4 S C M R 1167.

9. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. He emphasised that it was not a case of sudden fight but of a premeditated attack wherein the complainant is also injured as is borne out from medical certificate Ex. 20/B. He submitted that within a period of four years from the commission of offence and the examination of the prosecution witnesses, some of them who were named as eye‑witnesses by the complainant in he F.I.R were won over and hence the prosecution had to declare them hostile. He, however, urged that the memo of recovery of knife (Ex. 9/C) the weapon of murder at the pointation of the accused‑appellant, stands proved by the deposition of S.H.O. Maqbool Hussain Shah. Relying upon the decisions reported it P L D 1978 Kar. 593 and 1986 S C M R 1482 he urged that the statement of a police officer cannon be discarded if enmity is not alleged against him. He further contended that the evidence of PW Mst. Khairunissa fully establishes the commission of offence by the accused‑appellant. Her version gets support from the medical reports. She herself received an injury at the scene of offence and she cannot, according to him, be said to be an interested person. He urged with vehemence that the Supreme Court in the case of Zulfiquar Ahmed v. The State (P L D 1986 S C 477) has held that in such circumstances, as exist in. the instant case, the testimony of a single witness can be relied upon for conviction of an accused. In this connection he also placed reliance on 1987 M L D 2700. The counsel further submitted that contradiction about the number of injuries in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant in Court in the instant case was of no material consequence as she was interested to intervene rather than to witness the incident. In this connection he cited an authority of Lahore High Court reported in P L D 1985 Lahore 409. The counsel urged with vehemence that P.W. Mst. Khairunissa is a natural witness and her solitary evidence supported by medical evidence and recovery of knife were sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused‑appellant. Additionally, he urged that the report of the chemical analyser in respect of all the items besides knife clearly shows that they were all stained with human blood. Lastly, he urged that the evidence of P.W 4 Lal Mohomed alias Lala is also reliable and supports the prosecution version.

10. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and I do not feel hesitant, for `the reasons to follow, to repel them. No doubt in the instant case the solitary ocular evidence is that of P.W. 3 Mst. Khairunissa, the injured 'complainant, who is the mother of the deceased Shamsul Haq. It is by now too established a principle of law by authorities that the mere relationship of witness with the victim is not by itself a sufficient ground to reject the testimony of an eye‑witness if it is confidence inspiring. In the instant case PW 3 Mst. Khairunissa, I am clearly of the opinion on the basis of the evidence as it prevails on record, cannot be described to be an interested witness. The defence did attempt to suggest that she was interested to implicate the appellant by putting a question in cross‑examination to her that the deceased wanted to have her daughter Mst. Bano married with the appellant and that she had opposed the same. ‑She repelled the said suggestion in a straightforward manner as being false. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that it was not so serious ground of enmity that she would hide the real culprit and implicate the appellant for causing her injury and causing the death of her son. It is established on record through evidence of witnesses including those who were declared hostile that the place of occurrence was near the house of the ^6bmplainant. Besides by her own injury, her presence on the scene of offence is even proved, through the ocular evidence. PW Lal Mohammad has deposed, as already mentioned, that he saw the deceased lying in the lap of his mother, the complainant. So also PW 6 Abdul Sattar has deposed that he also saw the complainant at the scene and that she had also injury on one of her hands.

Likewise PW 1 Abdul Rahim has stated that the mother of deceased was crying, that her son had been killed and that she got him (the deceased) removed to I hospital through Mohallah people. She has deposed that she received injury in her hand at the hands of the appellant. She is, in my opinion, a natural witness. The chances of her being an interested witness having been repelled, the only question, therefore, that requires to be examined is whether she is an absolutely reliable witness. It is what has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mumtazuddin v. State (P L D 1978 S C 114) to which my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant, that "although a conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary eye‑witness, as a rule of prudence, Courts do not base the conviction on the evidence of solitary eye‑witness, unless that eye witness is absolutely reliable or unless his evidence is corroborated by reliable evidence". The fact deposed to by her that she received a knife injury at the hands of the appellant at the scene of offence is supported by the medical evidence. Similarly her statement to the effect that deceased was stabbed by a knife by the appellant also gets support from the post‑mortem report and the medical evidence. The only aspect of the case that needs special consideration is that during her deposition its Court she stated that the appellant had inflicted in all 7 injuries on the deceased including the one on head, back and abdomen which is contrary to the medical evidence inasmuch as according to the post‑mortem report the deceased had four injuries on his person. And whether for this reason she could be held to be an unreliable witness. Here I find that the incident had taken place on 20‑1‑1977 whereas she was examined in Court on 15th September, 1980 almost after four years of the incident. She is an illiterate household lady and hence she could not be expected to be accurate in her version. She might have forgotten about the number of injuries allegedly caused to the deceased by the appellant. In her statement in the F.I.R. she, however, stated only about two P injuries one on his back and the second on his right thigh. The trend of her a deposition is, however, straightforward and confidence inspiring. I am therefore, not inclined to hold her to be unreliable witness when her statements regarding all other facts are consistent with her 164, Cr.P.C. statement. The fact that her memory had faded during the time elapsed between the incident and the date of her evidence recorded in Court is also borne out from the fact that she could not give the names of the eye‑witnesses who had accompanied her to hospital and/or whose statements were recorded by the police in her presence.

11. On the basis of the above evidence, even if the evidence of recovery of knife is brushed‑aside the prosecution case for intentionally committing the murder of deceased Shamsul Haq by means of knife and also of giving knife blow to PW 3 Mst. Khairunissa stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The defence set up by the appellant does not get support from the facts deposed to by prosecution witnesses and so also it is not conclusively proved from the evidence' of the two defence witnesses so as to create an impression that the alleged enmity between PW 3 the complainant, and the appellant was so serious and deep rooted as to falsely implicate the appellant for having intentionally committed the murder. I do not, therefore, find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the conviction as awarded by the trial Court is maintained. It is, however, observed that the learned trial Court did not give any consideration to the question of giving the appellant the benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, while dismissing the appeal direct that the appellant shall be given the benefit under section, 382‑B Cr.P.C, The sentence of fine remains unaltered.

12. With the above modification the appeal stands dismissed.

SA./M‑397/K. Appeal dismissed.