In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 ..... Date of decision:3.5.2013 Santokh Singh and another ...Appellants v. State of Punjab ...Respondent .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jeyapaul Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh ..... Present: Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... Inderjit Singh, J.This appeal has been filed by appellants Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2007/26.7.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, whereby Santokh Singh, accused-appellant No.1 has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') for causing murder of Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh on two counts and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accused-appellant No.2 Gurmilap Singh has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Sections 326, 324 and 323 IPC. Gurmilap Singh has been acquitted for the charge under Section 29 of the Arms Act. Santokh Singh Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [2]. has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on two counts and to pay a fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Gurmilap Singh has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 326 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.7.2004, SI/SHO Swaran Singh of Police Station, Sultanwind was present in the Police Station and received secret information that in Village Chattiwind, Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [3]. Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh had been killed and Dalbir Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur had been injured and had been got admitted in Civil Hospital for treatment. Then SI/SHO Swaran Singh along with other Police officials reached Civil Hospital and obtained the opinion of the doctor about the condition of injured. The doctor declared injured fit to make statement. The statement Ex.PE of Dalbir Singh was recorded in which he stated that on 2.7.2004 at about 3.00 p.m., he along with his wife Ranjit Kaur, his niece Ramandeep Kaur daughter of Sakattar Singh accompanied by his brother Nirmal Singh and his nephew Amolak Singh and his sister-in-law (wife of his brother Sakattar Singh) Davinder Kaur were standing and talking in front of house of his brother Nirmal Singh. In the meanwhile, accused Gurmilap Singh armed with 12 bore gun, Santokh Singh armed with `Kirpan' (sword) along with Jagdish Singh and Malwinder Singh came in connivance with each other and immediately on arriving there, Santokh Singh raised a `Lalkara' that on that day they be taught a lesson for taking forcible possession of area of pond. Then on saying so, Gurmilap Singh fired a shot from 12 bore gun which hit Amolak Singh on left side of temple and he fell down due to bullet shot and then Santokh Singh took the gun from Gurmilap Singh and fired a direct shot at Nirmal Singh which hit him on the right side of his flank and he too fell down there and thereafter Gurmilap Singh gave `Kirpan' blows from the sharp side on Amolak Singh hitting him on his right cheek, below the right ear and the neck on the right side. Complainant and his wife Ranjit Kaur and his niece Ramandeep Kaur stepped forward to rescue him. Then Gurmilap Singh inflicted direct `Kirpan' blows on the complainant which hit Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [4]. on his left hand, on the head of his wife Ranjit Kaur and on the left arm of his niece Ramandeep Kaur. They raised `Raula' `being killed – being killed'. Then Davinder Kaur wife of Sakattar Singh stepped forward to rescue them and the accused fled away from the spot while raising `Lalkara' along with their respective weapons. The motive behind this occurrence was that Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh both were raising construction of a room on their own land and the accused were stopping them from raising construction there. This statement of Dalbir Singh was completed at about 6.30 p.m. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered. The Investigating Officer Swaran Singh also recorded the statements of PW Ramandeep Kaur and Ranjit Kaur in the hospital later on after visiting the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He also prepared inquest reports Ex.PW.11/A of deceased Amolak Singh and Ex.PW.11/B of deceased Nirmal Singh. Dead bodies of Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh were sent for getting post- mortem examination done. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW.11/C on the direction of Dalbir Singh. From the spot, he took into Police possession two empties of 12 bore after preparing sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PW.11/D. Blood stained earth near the dead bodies of Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh was also lifted and taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. Accused Santokh Singh made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed SBBL gun in his residential house in an iron box Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [5]. and then in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW.11/G, he got recovered the licensed gun, which was taken into Police possession after preparing a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PW.11/J.Accused Gurmilap Singh made disclosure statement Ex.PW.11/H that he had kept concealed blood stained `Kirpan' and in pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered the same which was also taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in Court. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh, framed charges for the offences under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 326, 326 read with Section 34 IPC, 324, 324 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 323, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and for the offence under Sections 27 and 29 of the Arms Act for the murder of Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh and for causing injuries to Dalbir Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur. Charges were also framed against co-accused Jagdish Singh and Malwinder Singh, who were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ramandeep Kaur. She is injured eye witness to the occurrence. She deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 Dr. Manpreet Kaul, Medical Officer conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amolak Singh on 3.7.2004 along with Dr. Shilekh Mittal and found the following injuries:- Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [6].
“1. 19 x 8 cms irregular shaped lacerated wound with everted margins, extending 4.2 cms above tip of nose and reaching upto top of head. Wound was associated with bursting fracture of the skull. Part of frontal bone, both parietal bones were found missing, brain matter was found sunken inorbital sockets and were found explosed to exterior. Base of the skull was visible and was found fractured in multiple, pieces. Infiltration Brain was found lacerated. Both eye balls were found sunken in orbital sockets and were found deformed. Multiple pellets (22 in no.) alongwith one plastic wad was removed from brain matter and surrounding tissues. Wound track and adjacent tissues were pink in colour. Multiple lacerated wound surrounding upto injury No.1 were present on right side of forehead, 7 in number size varying from 0.3 x 0.2 cm to 0.2 x 0.1 cm with crenated margins.
2. 12.5 x 3 cm obliquely placed encliptical in shaped incised wound was present on the right side of face, just below right ear ovule underlying muscles and mandible was found clean cut.
3. 5.8 x 1 cm elliptical shaped incised wound was present on the right side of face, 4.5 cm below injury No.2, 1 cm from tailing was present medially, underlying muscles were found clean cut and infiltration was found.
4. 6 x 0.5 cm incised wound elliptical in shape was present on right side of neck 3.5 cm from injury No.2 and was obliquely Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [7]. placed. Skin deep CBP.
5. 0.5 x 0.4 cm reddish brown abrasion was present on frontal neck on left side, 5 cm above left sterno clavicular joint.
6. 1.2 x 1 cm reddish brown abrasion was present on top of left shoulder.”
. As per the opinion of the doctors, all injuries in this case were ante- mortem. Cause of death was laceration of brain as a result of injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-2 Dr. Manpreet Kaur also deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nirmal Singh on the same day and found following injuries-
“1. 4 x 4 cm circular shaped, lacerated wound with crenated edges and was abraded, blackening and tattooing of surrounding skin was present alongwith scorching of skin was present on right anterior lateral aspect of chest, 16 cm below anterior axillary fold at 8'O clock position in relation to right nipple, underlying soft tissue and part of liver was seen coming out of the wound. On dissection under lying muscles were found lacerated, 8th rib was found fractured, right pleura cavity contained 380 cc of fluid blood. Multiple small laceration was present in the lung. Multiple small laceration was present inpericardial and heart over its right side. Pericardial cavity contained 290 gm of clotted blood. Heart was lacerated at multiple sites. Multiple pellets were recovered from right pleural cavity, heart and lung. On dissection of abdomen right Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [8]. crush of diaphragm was found lacerated and was communicating abdominal cavity with right thoracic cavity. Liver was found lacerated. 2 Plastic wads were recovered from the liver alongwith multiple pellets. Peritoneal cavity contained 460 cc of blood track was directed horizontally from right towards left side. Pinkish discolouration was present in wound track and adjacent tissues. Clotted blood was present in track. Three cardboard wads were removed from underneath the clothing (kurta and banyan). Total 29 pellets alongwith 5 wads were removed and sealed in a plastic jar, duly labelled and initialled by us and were handed over to Police alongwith duly initialled clothing.”
. As per the opinion of the doctors, injury No.1 in this case was ante- mortem in origin and was as a result of firearm discharge. Cause of death in this case was laceration of vital organs (liver, heart and right lung) as a result of injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the cross-examination, the doctor also deposed regarding conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amrik Kaur wife of Santokh Singh on the same day at about 11.00 a.m. Alleged cause as mentioned in the Police papers was that she died due to heart attack. On post-mortem examination, the cause of death was kept pending till receipt of Chemical Examiner's report and after receiving the report, the doctors declared the cause of death in this case as “choloro compound poisoning ( a group of insecticide)”. which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [9]. course of nature. PW-3 Dalbir Singh is complainant and injured eye witness. He also deposed regarding the same facts as given in the FIR. PW-4 HC Paramjit Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PF. PW-5 Rishi Ram, Draftsman deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PG. PW-6 Constable Jaswinder Singh and PW-7 Constable Rajinder Kumar are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.PH and PI respectively. PW-8 Dr. Sudesh Kumar, EMO, Civil Hospital, Amritsar deposed regarding conducting medico-legal examination of Dalbir Singh on 2.7.2004 at 5.40 p.m. and found the following injuries:-
“1. 7 cm x 1 cm bone deep incised wound present on the ulna aspect of left palm 3 proximal to base of little finger. Fresh bleeding present. Movement of left little finger and left middle finger painful and restricted. Advised X-ray and ortho surgeon's opinion.
2. The vertical abrasion 2 cm x 0.1 cm reddish in colour was present on right side of forehead 1.5 cm above the outer end of right eyebrow.”
. He declared injury No.1 on the basis of report of Radiologist as grievous in nature. Injury No.2 was simple in nature. Kind of weapon was sharpened. Duration of injuries was within six hours. He also medico- legally examined Ranjit Kaur on the same day at 6.15 p.m. and found the following injury:- “ 1. Y shaped incised wound measuring 11 cm x 0.5 cm and 8 Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [10]. cm x 0.5 cm present on the top of head. The small limb 18 cm from the right mastoid process and the longer limb was 20 cm from the right mastoid process. Fresh bleeding was present. Depth of wound was not probed. X-ray was advised and General Surgeon's opinion.”
. Injury No.1 was declared as simple in nature. He also medico-legally examined Ramandeep Kaur on the same day at about 6.40 p.m. and found the following injuries on her person:-
“1. 5.5. cm x 2 cm bone deep gaping incised wound was present on the ulna aspect of left forearm 9 cm distal to the olecranot process. Fresh bleeding was present X-ray was advised.
2. 1 cm x 0.5 cm incised wound with tailing of 7 cm was present on the ulna aspect of left forearm. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.”
. Injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature. He also deposed regarding X-ray report and that injury No.2 was simple in nature. PW-9 ASI Nazar Singh mainly deposed regarding his associating in the investigation with SI/SHO Swaran Singh. He also deposed regarding getting conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh. PW-10 Dr. Poonam Kohli, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Amritsar mainly deposed regarding X-ray examination of the injured and the X-ray reports. PW-11 SI/SHO Swaran Singh mainly deposed regarding conducting the investigation in this case. PW-12 Anokh Ram, Clerk office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [11]. mainly deposed regarding the licence of the gun in the name of Santokh Singh. PW-13 Constable Jatinderpal Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW.1/BA. PW-14 HC Panna Lal is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW.14/A. The Additional Public Prosecutor tendered FSL report Ex.PY and closed the prosecution evidence. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. They stated that they are innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. They would file separate written statements. In defence, the accused/appellants examined DW-1 Kamla Devi, Record Keeper, D.C. Office, Amritsar, who deposed regarding certified copy of order dated 30.1.2004 Ex.D.2 and order dated 10.6.2003 Ex.D.3. DW-2 Rakesh Kumari, Ahlmad deposed that she had brought the record regarding case/Civil Suit No.688/17.2.2005/2.7.2005 titled Harjinder Kaur etc. v. Santokh Singh and others and deposed regarding certified copy of the plaint, certified copies of the statement of Baljit Singh and Harjinder Kaur etc. DW-3 A.S. Randhawa, Advocate, District Courts, Amritsar also deposed regarding copy of plaint Ex.D.7 in case Harjinder Kaur v. Santokh Singh and others. DW-4 HC Harcharan Singh mainly produced report Ex.D.9. The learned trial Court after going through the evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Santokh Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [12]. Singh and Gurmilap Singh for the offences as mentioned above. Accused Jagdish Singh and Malwinder Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellant No.1 Santokh Singh is stated to have died on 17.4.2008 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal. Copy of death certificate dated 30.4.2008 has been placed on record, therefore, proceedings qua appellant No.1 Santokh Singh be abated. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has also made statement that Santokh Singh had died. Since appellant No.1 Santokh Singh had died, as such appeal qua him is abated. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 Gurmilap Singh argued that Amrik Kaur wife of Santokh Singh appellant and mother of Gurmilap Singh was forcibly lifted and taken to the house of Nirmal Singh where the complainant party administered her poison and she died in the house of Nirmal Singh. To save and rescue Amrik Kaur in self-defence this occurrence took place. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appeal be accepted accordingly and appellant No.2 is entitled to acquittal. He also argued that their cross-version has not been recorded by the Police and the investigation in the present case is tainted one and on this ground also a reasonable doubt exists and the appellants should be acquitted. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the injured eye witnesses. Their presence on the spot is Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [13]. duly proved and cannot be doubted. Otherwise also, from the defence version, the accused-appellants admitted the date, time, place and mode of occurrence. There is no evidence on the record to show that accused- appellants acted in self defence. There was no injury on the person of accused-appellants. There is no evidence on record that Amrik Kaur died in the house of Nirmal Singh. There is no evidence on the record that the complainant-party administered any insecticide to Amrik Kaur. No defence witness has been examined to prove defence version and to prove all these facts. Therefore, he argued that there being no merit in the appeal , it should be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent- State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of direct evidence i.e. eye witness account. Dalbir Singh is complainant and injured eye witness. He has received grievous injury on his person. Similarly, PW- 1 Ramandeep Kaur has also received grievous as well simple injuries by sharp edged weapons. Therefore, presence of all these eye witnesses on the spot cannot be doubted. Both these PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There are no material improvements or contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The occurrence took place as per prosecution version on 2.7.2004 at 3.00 p.m. and the statement of the complainant was completed at about 6.30 p.m. The complainant was admitted in the hospital and the Police party reached there and after Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [14]. obtaining opinion regarding the fitness of the injured recorded the statement of the complainant without unnecessary delay. In other words, the FIR is prompt one. The statements of these injured/eye witnesses are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. The injuries as given in the FIR have been found on the person of the injured. Amolak Singh and Nirmal Singh died due to gun shot injuries. Therefore, medical evidence supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Further from the evidence on record, we find that licensed single barrel gun was recovered as per disclosure statement of Santokh Singh and blood stained `Kirpan' was got recovered by Gurmilap Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement. A suggestion was put to PW-1 Ramandeep Kaur in cross-examination that Nirmal Singh, Amolak Singh (both deceased) and Dalbir Singh had raised construction of their houses in the land of pond which suggestion was denied. No defence version regarding lifting of Amrik Kaur forcibly to the house of Nirmal Singh etc. was put to PW-1. Even this version has not been given in the statements of the accused-appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The motive as per prosecution version was dispute regarding raising of construction over the area of pond etc. and suggestion to PW-1 by the defence counsel was given regarding the same. Another suggestion was given to PW-1 Ramandeep Kaur that no occurrence, as alleged by her, had ever taken place, which was also denied. In the cross-examination, to PW-3 Dalbir Singh, a suggestion was given that the complainant party incurred grudge against Santokh Singh and his family because they were stopped from raising construction, which was denied. Defence version is put to PW- 3 that Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh and injured witnesses forcibly lifted Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [15]. Amrik Kaur and brought her to the house of Nirmal Singh. In the house of Nirmal Singh, they forcibly administered poison (insecticide) to Amrik Kaur and confined her in a room of Nirmal Singh. It is also put to PW-3 Dalbir Singh that after a short while both Gurmilap Singh and Santokh Singh came to their house from their fields and did not find Amrik Kaur there and a boy informed Santokh Singh that the complainant party forcibly confined Amrik Kaur in the house of Nirmal Singh and had also administered poison to her. It is also put to the complainant that Santokh Singh took his gun and Gurmilap Singh took sickle and went towards the house of Nirmal Singh to rescue Amrik Kaur and the complainant party did not allow ingress to Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh into the house of Nirmal Singh not they released Amrik Kaur and they tried to attack Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh whereupon Santokh Singh fired from his gun hitting Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh. Gurmilap Singh, who had sickle, caused some injuries to witnesses with his sickle. After the fall of Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh, Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh entered the house of Nirmal Singh and found Amrik Kaur lying dead there and thereafter Santokh Singh himself went to the Police Station and informed the Police about this occurrence. All this version put to PW-3 had been denied by the witness. From these suggestions by the defence counsel to PW-3 Dalbir Singh, the defence had admitted the place, date and time of occurrence and the fact that they killed Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh by firing gun shots. They also admitted the injuries given to the witnesses. Though suggestion was given regarding causing of injuries by way of sickle, but prosecution version is that injuries were caused by way of `Kirpan'. In view of these suggestions Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [16]. as well as the positive evidence produced by the prosecution i.e. injured eye witnesses, the prosecution has duly proved that Santokh Singh and Gurmilap Singh killed Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh by firearm injuries and Gurmilap Singh also gave injuries with sharp edged weapon to Dalbir Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Ramandeep Kaur. As already discussed, the oral statements of the PWs are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and further from this defence version. As the appellants had taken the plea of self-defence, therefore, they are to prove that Amrik Kaur was lifted by Nirmal Singh and Amolak Singh and administered poison to her and she died in the house of Nirmal Singh. To prove this fact, there is no cogent evidence on the record except this suggestion to PW-3. Admittedly, as per doctor's statement, Amrik Kaur died due to poisoning but there is not an iota of evidence to show that Amrik Kaur died in the house of Nirmal Singh. There is no evidence on the record that Nirmal Singh etc. administered her poison. There is also no evidence that Nirmal Singh etc. forcibly took Amrik Kaur to their house. No neighbour or any person from the village or from the relations of the accused-appellants appeared to depose this version. Therefore, this defence version regarding self-defence cannot be believed. Even this defence version is put to the Investigating Officer. He also denied that Amrik Kaur was abducted or administered poison or her dead body was lying in the house of Nirmal Singh. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that if the appellants had been falsely implicated in the present case and their version had not been recorded, they could file complaint, representation or application to the higher authorities but no such step has Cr. Appeal not D-760-DB of 2007 [17]. been taken. Again the natural course for the appellants was to file criminal complaint in the Court, if their version was not recorded but no such complaint has been filed. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the defence version cannot be believed. The PWs are truthful, trustworthy and reliable witnesses. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve their statements. In view of above, we find no merit in the appeal of Gurmilap Singh and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence qua him passed by the learned trial Court are upheld. The appeal qua appellant No.1 Santokh Singh is abated due to his death. The sentence of appellant No.2 Gurmilap Singh was suspended by this Court vide order dated 28.1.2010 and he was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. As he is on bail, his bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law. (M. Jeyapaul) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge May 3, 2013. *hsp*