1. The sole accused in S.C.No.99/21 on the files of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [`POCSO Act’ for short hereinafter] has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment dated 31.05.2022 in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution. Perused the verdict under challenge and the evidence available.

3. Precisely, the prosecution case is that the accused, who is none other than the elder brother of PW1, the victim, aged below 18 years, subjected the victim to penetrative sexual assault in between 20.03.2020 and 03.08.2020. Thus prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and (n), and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) as well as under Sections 3(a) r/w 4, 5(1) and (n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (`JJ Act’ for short), by the accused.

4. The learned Special Judge, on completing the pre-trial formalities, recorded evidence. PW1 to PW18 were examined and Exts.P1 to P25 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge evaluated the evidence and found that the appellant/accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and (n), and 376(3) of the IPC as well as under Sections 3(a) r/w 4, 5(1) and (n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as under:

                  “In the result::

                  1. the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand only) each, for the offences punishable U/Ss. 5(1) and (n) read with 6 of the PoCSO Act, and in default of payment of the aggregate of the fine amount ordered to be paid, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for a further period of six (6) months;

                  2. he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- (rupees thousand only) for the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for a further period of one (1) month;

                  3. the substantive sentences shall run concurrently;

                  4. no separate punishment is awarded for the offences under sections 376(3), 376(f) and (n) of the IPC and S. 3(a) read with S. 4 of the POCSO Act, in view of the bar under section 42 of the POCSO Act and section 71 of the IPC, respectively;

                  5. the convict is allowed to set off U/s. 428 of Cr.PC for the period of detention already undergone by him as an under trial prisoner, from 29.10.2020 to the date of sentence, against the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded;

                  6. if the fine amount is paid or realised, as ordered above, it shall be released to the victim as compensation U/s 357(1)(b) Cr.PC.;

                  7. the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Ernakulam is recommended for providing compensation to the victim under the Kerala State Victim Compensation Scheme. The office of this court is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the DLSA, forthwith.”

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that this is a false case foisted at the instance of PW2, who had earlier maintained a relationship with the accused, when the relationship became collapsed, as a retaliatory measure. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, PW2 had instituted the case on false substratum, weaponising PW1. Apart from that the learned counsel for the appellant/accused summarised his contention by putting an argument note as under:

                  “The appellant has raised the following arguments in the above case:

                  I. IT IS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME

                  II. VITAL IMPROBABILITY

                  III. MEDICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CORROBORATE THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

                  IV. GENUINITY OF FIS IS IN QUESTION

                  V. UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN GETTING THE FIR RESGISTERED

                  VI. THE DEFENCE CASE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT STANDS PROVED

                  VII. NO PROPER IDENTIFICATION

                  I. IT IS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME

                  It is evident from the entire deposition of PW1 victim and also from PW6 that the room was filled with pitch darkness at the time of the incident. It is also evident from the deposition of PW1 victim that she was sleeping alongside both her brothers. She has not specifically stated how she identified the assaulter to be the appellant himself. It is evident from the entire prosecution records including the statement of the victim that no sexual assault took place except in the pitch darkness.

                  II. VITAL IMPROBABILITY

                  1. There is contradiction between the statement of PW1 and PW6 with regard to four of the siblings sleeping together in one room. As it is reflected in page 2 of the deposition of PW6, she says that the sisters including the victim sleeps in another room and not with the brothers including the accused.

                  2. PW6 is seen deposing as it is evident from page no.2 of her deposition that despite knowing regarding the act of the sexual misconduct of her brother appellant, she never took care to see that he does not repeat it. It is evident from the entire prosecution records that PW6 has no case that she was intimidated and threatened by the appellant in any case.

                  3. The Ext.P9 medical examination report does not in any way corroborate the prosecution case. The arguments pertaining to this is laid down in detail below.

                  III. MEDICAL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CORROBORATE THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

                  1. It is evident from the Ext.P9 medical certificate and from the evidence of PW12 Doctor who prepared the Ext.P9 medical certificate that it does not contain the office seal of the concerned hospital. Hence the very genuineness of the Ext.P9 medical certificate is in question.

                  2. It is evident that the medical certificate is issued in violation of Section 164 A (4) of the Criminal procedure code and r/w Section 27 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, as permission of no adult is taken prior to examining the child victim.

                  3. It is evident from the deposition of PW12 that initially she ticked hymen intact' in the Ext.P9 medical certificate, however later she changed that to hymen torn'. The reason for this correction is not mentioned in the report. This being the situation no oral explanation of PW12 doctor can make good this discrepancy in the documentary evidence which is the medical certificate. Also it is reflected from the Ext.P9 medical certificate that the fourchette of the child could not be examined as is evident from the fifth page of the medical certificate. It is submitted that if the hymen could have been examined, it is unlikely that the examination of the fourchette would have been left out. The fourchette is a part of a female's genital organ which lies outside the hymen. An intact fourchette is a sure sign of virginity as per experts. The doctor who has committed many discrepancies in connection with Ext.P9 seems to have suppressed the actual condition of the child's fourchette for best reasons known to her alone.

                  4. It is evident that the hymen is intact from the medical examination report. This does not in any way corroborate the case of the prosecution to the effect that the child was subjected to continuous vaginal penetrative sexual assault over a period of time.

                  IV. GENUINITY OF FIS IS IN QUESTION

                  As per the evidence of PW2 as is reflected in page 5 of her deposition, the relative of the child who took initiative to get the case registered, the PW1 along with PW2 had gone directly to the concerned police station and given a statement which led to the registration of the crime. However as per the Ext.P1 FIS, it is evident that the same is recorded from the residence of the victim. Further the PW16 investigation officer also puts forth as is reflected in page 4 of his deposition that none of them, neither the child nor the PW2 or any other relatives had come to the police station in connection with the case. There is thus a clear suppression of the very first statement given by the victim. An adverse inference may be taken against the prosecution on account of this suppression. In Royson v. State of Kerala (2017 KHC 1056), the Honourable Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has made it clear that, Suppression of material information in the first information statement is very fatal and has to be viewed very seriously and such suppression is all the more crucial when the conviction is resting on the sole testimony of the person who had given the FIS suppressing the material facts.

                  V. UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN GETTING THE FIR RESGISTERED

                  As per the evidence of the PW1 victim as reflected in page 3 of her deposition, it is evident that she was not assaulted post August 2020. Despite this, there is unexplained delay of almost two months in getting the FIR registered. This becomes crucial in the light of the fact that the appellant was not threatening the child any manner nor he was present or residing with the child post August 2020. In Santhosh Prasad @ Santhosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2020 KHC 6155), The Honourable Supreme Court Division Bench has made it clear that in a case where there are material contradictions in evidence of prosecutrix and when there is delay in lodging FIR, conviction of appellant as recorded by court below cannot be sustained. Further it also quotes that a sterling witness should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.

                  VI. THE DEFENCE CASE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT STANDS PROVED

                  In fact the specific defense case is that the PW2 who is a cousin of both the appellant and the victim child instigated the child to file a false case against the appellant on account of enemity between herself and the appellant. It has clearly come out from the evidence of deposition in page 2 of PW2 that at one point of time the appellant was staying with her. Further it has come out from the evidence of PW7 house owner that PW2 was evicted on account of her questionable relations with many men. It has come out from the evidence of DW2 who is the brother of both victim and the appellant that there was a fall out between the PW2 and the appellant. Also it has clearly come out from the evidence of PW1 and PW6 sister that they are completely dependent, including for their financial needs, upon the PW2. This clearly probabilises the appellant's defense case that on account of fall out that happened between appellant and PW2 because the former questioned her for having relations outside her marriage with other men. Further that on account of this she influenced the child victim to give a false against the appellant for interfering in her life.

                  VII. NO PROPER IDENTIFICATION

                  There are many contradictions in the statement of PW1. It is evident from PW1's deposition that she only mentions that her brother has assaulted her. But does not specify which brother. Further it is also evident from the chief examination of PW1 that she had identified the accused only by the smell of his sweat and by no other means of identification was there. In page 5 of PW1's deposition it is clear that she does not know the size of the person who assaulted her is. Furthermore, PW1 victim has not made dock identification of the accused.”

6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the contention raised by the appellant/accused and submitted that the evidence available would suggest that the offences had been committed by the appellant/accused. It is also submitted that none of the contentions raised by the appellant/accused, including the non-identification of the accused, the improbability of the occurrence, the medical evidence, the genuineness of the FIS, or the delay in lodging the FIR, would succeed, particularly when DW2, who is none other than another brother of the accused and who also slept along with the victim at the time of occurrence, deposed that the appellant/accused and himself laid along with PW1 on her both sides while watching film in the mobile phone held by the appellant. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor pressed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration:

                  (i) Whether the Special Court is right in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC?

                  (ii) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC?

                  (iii) Whether the Special Court erred in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC?

                  (iv) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 3(a) r/ 4 of the POCSO Act?

                  (v) Whether the Special Court erred in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5(1) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act?

                  (vi) Whether the Special Court went wrong in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 5(n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act?

                  (vii) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act?

                  (viii) Is it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment in any manner?

                  (ix) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (ix)

8. In order to prove the prosecution allegation, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1. PW1 was subjected to voir dire examination by the learned Special Judge and on satisfying that the witness was capable of understanding the questions and also capable of giving rational answers to questions, she was examined. During chief examination, PW1 deposed that she was studying in 9th standard and she had father, mother, two brothers and one sister. According to her, she had been residing along with the children of the elder brother of her father at present and her mother had been under treatment for the last seven years at a hospital in Wayanad. She deposed that her father was doing coolie work. According to her, her elder brother had been in jail and younger brother had been studying for priestship. She deposed further that, during March, 2020, she along with her family had resided in a rental house at Vattathara in Chengal. She testified that, during night, they used to watch film in the mobile phone of the accused and they used to sleep in one room. Parents would sleep in another room. According to her, after watching the film, they used to sleep together. While sleeping, her elder brother used to pull her close to him and cover her with bed sheet. Then he would remove her pants, underwear and then insert his penis into her vagina and continued the same on many days. She became afraid and thereby started sleeping with her parents. She also deposed that she was afraid to disclose the same to her younger brother, as she feared that something bad had been done to her by her elder brother. She deposed further that, on 03.08.2020, she attained puberty and she informed the same to her sister and after she attained puberty, the brother did not assault her. Later she along with her sister reached the house of PW2 (she is the daughter of the elder brother of PW1’s father) and thereafter PW2 brought her back to her house along with her sister. When PW2 was about to return to her home along with the sister of PW1, PW1’s sister informed her that it would not be safe to leave PW1 at the house when their elder brother was at the home and accordingly PW1 was taken by PW2 to her house. Later PW2 informed the occurrence to the police and PW1 along with PW2 reached the police station and had given statement. When a question was asked about the dates of assault, she answered that she could not exactly tell the dates as she was subjected to sexual intercourse on multiple days. She identified Ext.P1 as the statement she had given to the police and Ext.P2 as the statement she had given to the Magistrate. During cross-examination, she deposed that the house where the occurrence took place consisted of two rooms and a hall. When a question was put to PW1 suggesting that PW1 along with her sister slept in one room, she answered that she along with her sister and two brothers were sleeping in one room. She used to call the elder brother as Appuchettayi. She deposed further that Appuchettayi was a person having 70 kg. weight. She further deposed that, while she was lying down to sleep after watching films, Appuchettayi and her other brother were lying on her both sides. When a question was asked as to PW1 was not aware about who had done the assault, she answered by telling that it was Appuchettayi (the accused). During cross examination, she reiterated her version in chief examination. Thus when certain questions (court questions) were put to PW1 by the learned Special Judge to ensure that the assault was done by the accused, PW1 deposed that she was so sure that the assault was done by Appuchettayi (the accused) as he was stout and the other brother was taller than Appuchettayi and he was lean. While answering another question put by the court, she deposed that Appuchettayi was in the habit of sweating always, whereas her other brother did not have such a habit. Therefore, there would always be sweat on Appuchettayi’s body. To another court question, she answered that the other brother did not do anything and he also did not use to behave so closely to her. Apart from the evidence of PW1, the prosecution examined other witnesses including PW2 referred by PW1 and the cousin sister (the daughter of the elder brother of PW1’s father).

9. The cousin sister referred by PW1 was examined as PW2. She deposed that occasionally she would go to the house where the victim and her family lived. One day, when she went to their house, she took PWs 1 and 2 to her house as their father had to go for work for a week. A week later, when their father returned after work, he wanted the victim alone to be sent back to his house. She took the victim to her house along with her sister, and on their way back home after leaving the victim in the house, the sister of the victim told her that it was not good to leave the victim alone, when the accused was there. So, both of them immediately reached the house of the victim and picked her up and took the victim to her house. When she came home and asked the victim, she told her that the accused had abused the victim. The victim told her that the accused pressed his penis into her urinating area. The very next day, she went to the Kalady police station and reported the matter. She identified her signature on Exhibit P2 mahasar prepared while the clothes of the victim were recovered.

10. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the elder sister of the victim got examined as PW6. She testified that in the beginning of the month of August, the victim had told her that elder brother inserted his penis into her urinating portion. When her father went for work, she and her sister were taken to the house of PW2. A week's later, when the father reached home, he required the victim alone to be shifted to the house, so she and PW2 took the victim to the house, and on their way back to the house of PW2, she informed PW2 that it was not good to keep the victim alone in the house, so both of them returned to the house and took victim also to the house of PW2. When asked, the victim disclosed the incident to both of them. She identified her signature on Exhibit P2.

11. PW18 is the father of the victim and the accused. He had testified that in 2020, he along with his family consisting of his wife and four children had resided in Vattathara for rent, though he was a native of Idukki. He testified further that his wife had been suffering from mental illness for 22 years and had been undergoing treatment in Wayanad. When he was living in Vattathara in 2020, his wife came there and stayed with him for eight months. In October 2020, his wife returned to Wayanad. The police came to his house and took the accused. When asked, they informed him that PW1 had lodged a complaint against the accused. He deposed further that at that time, the victim was at the house of PW2.

12. PW12, the Doctor who examined the victim on 29-10-2020 at 9.30 am, fully supported the prosecution case. He testified that a police officer accompanied the victim had given the history of the alleged incident as "sexual harassment by her own brother Alex from March 2020, at their rented house at Kalady, penetration with penis into her vagina, several times" Her hymen was found torn and the doctor opined that the victim had been sexually harassed by her brother and the reason for the finding was the history as well as the tearing of the hymen. The medical certificate of the victim issued by PW12 was marked as Exhibit P9 as she had given evidence fully supporting the contention and finding thereof.

13. Exhibit P1 first information statement of the victim on 29-10-2020 at 8:15 a.m, in the house of PW2 by PW10, the woman police officer. She deposed the same by stating that she had obtained the signatures of the child and her sister in Ext.P1. She also identified Exhibit P1 and the signatures therein.

14. PW14, the Judicial Magistrate, deposed that she had recorded the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the victim had given Exhibit P12 portion which is in conformity with the prosecution case and the evidence given by the victim in this case.

15. PW 16, the inspector of Kalady police station, stated that he had registered Exhibit P13 FIR on 29/10/2020 on the basis of Exhibit P1 FI statement of the victim recorded and produced before him by PW 9. He also conducted the investigation and laid the final report in the court.

16. Here 8 points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to unsustain the verdict impugned and also to establish the case also would make the case as a false case. The first point argued is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant, who committed the crime. The second point is a vital improbability in the prosecution case, as regards to the contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW6 as to whether the siblings slept together in one room. The third contention is want of proper identification of the accused as the wrong doer. While addressing these 3 contentions, it is relevant to note that, during chief examination, the victim(PW1) stated her brother as the person, who committed the offence. But during cross examination it had been revealed that, it was her elder brother, whom she called as “Appuchettayi”, had committed aggravated sexual assault on her and she also deposed regarding the height and weight difference between her two brothers by specifying the accused as the brother, who had committed the sexual assault against her. In fact, the court also had put relevant questions to ensure that, who had committed the sexual overt acts among the two brothers, who alleged to have lied together with PW1 after seeing films in the mobile phone of the accused in one room. Then also, PW1 consistently stated that it was done by Appuchettayi (the accused) and also spoken about the particular nature of his body, and she stated that the other brother did not behave so close to her and he would not do so. Thus the evidence of PW1 categorically establishes that the appellant had committed sexual assault on PW1. In this connection it is pertinent to note that, on the side of the defence, the other brother was examined as DW2 and the attempt by examining DW2 was to prove that during March, 2020 he also joined at the rental house taken by his brother (the accused) and according to him, during his stay at that house, he along with the accused stayed in one room and the parents stayed in another room. But during cross examination, he testified that during March, 2020 while staying at the rented house, they used to see films and to see the films, his brother (the accused) and two sisters, including PW1, would join and they used to sleep after watching the films and they used to see films once or twice in a week. He deposed further that he used to see films in the mobile phone of the accused and during this time, PW1 would lay in between him and the elder brother, the accused. He also deposed that, after he went to sleep, he would not wake up unless there was some sound or touch on his body. This version of DW2 also would fortify the prosecution case regarding the sexual assault committed by the appellant/accused and provides substantial corroboration to the prosecution casse that all four of them laid together while watching films. Thus the contention that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence or there are vital improbabilities or that there was no proper identification of the accused as the wrong doer, cannot be accepted and accordingly the said contentions are set at rest. Regarding the contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW7, in fact, no material contradiction to be found.

17. The fourth contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is absence of medical evidence to corroborate the version of PW1 and the prosecution case. In this case, as already discussed, PW12, the doctor, who had examined the victim at 9.30 a.m on 29.10.2020, had categorically given evidence that, on examination she found that “hymen was found torn” and the victim had been sexually harassed by her brother and the reason for the finding was the history as well as the tearing of the hymen. Thus the medical evidence also would suggest the fact that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault, which resulted in tearing of her hymen. Therefore, this challenge is of no merit.

18. Another challenge raised is the unexplained delay in registering this crime and also the genuineness of the FIS. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, as held in Royson v. State of Kerala’s case (supra), suppression of material information in the first information statement would be fatal and here as per the evidence of PW2, she had taken the initiative to give Ext.P1 as that of PW1, which led to the registration of this crime, where none of the relatives turned up for giving their statements. In fact, this contention found to be lacking any merit as PW2, the cousin sister of PW1, in fact, on questioning PW1 understood the sexual harassment and she soon informed the same to the police, which led to registration of the FIR regarding Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. Thus PW2 had, in fact, discharged the responsibility, as provided under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, this cannot be a ground to hold that the FIS is not genuine as nothing available in evidence to hold so. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIS in this case, the occurrence had started during the month of March, 2020 and there was no sexual assault after she had attained puberty in August, 2020. Ext.P1 FIS was recorded on 29.10.2020 when the victim’s sister told the same to PW2. Regarding the non disclosure of the sexual assault at the instance of the accused, the same was intimated to PW2 by PW1’s sister, as informed by PW1. In Ext.P1 FIS, PW1 stated that she was afraid of informing the same and therefore she disclosed the same after she attained maturity. During her examination also she had explained the circumstances in similar way. It is true that it is well settled law that disclosure of sexual molestation at a later point of time by the victim for justifiable reasons which had a detriment effect on her future could not be held serious or fatal. It is true that the decision pointed out by the learned counsel in Santhosh Prasad @ Santhosh Kumar v. State of Bihar’s case (supra) when long delay in lodging the FIR along with material contradictions in evidence of prosecutrix, the Apex Court disbelieved the case of prosecution. Here the evidence of PW1 is found to be consistent and reliable. Further PW1 is a witness of sterling quality, to act upon her evidence, as the sole basis of conviction. Therefore, in this case where the occurrence started in March, 2020 and continued until PW1 attained puberty in August, 2020, and the sexual assault was disclosed on 29.10.2020, the delay could not be held as unexplained and the delay, in fact, had been properly explained.

19. Another contention raised is that, in the instant case, in the aforesaid circumstances, the defense case stands proved, as PW2, who is the cousin of both the appellant and the victim, had instructed the victim to foist a false case against the appellant on account of the enmity between PW2 and the appellant. In this regard the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that during cross examination of PW2, she stated that, at one point of time the appellant stayed along with PW2 and PW2 was evicted by PW7. Further, DW2 deposed that there was a fallout between PW2 and the appellant. In fact, going through the evidence extracted from the mouth of PW2, the cousin of both the appellant and the victim, she had not stated anything remotely suggesting that she had any enmity towards the accused or any reason to implicate him in a false case. It is relevant to note further that during further cross examination of PW2, it was suggested by the counsel for the accused that PW2 as a lady living in relationship with one Jinson. Thus there is nothing in the evidence of PW2 to show that she was inimical towards the accused for any reason so as to falsely implicate the appellant/accused in this crime. Therefore, this contention also found to be devoid of merits.

20. Thus on re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Special Judge was right in finding that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and (n), and 376(3) of the IPC as well as under Sections 3(a) r/w 4, 5(1) and (n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act. Therefore the conviction doesn’t require any interference.

21. Coming to the sentence, the Special Court imposed the minimum punishment provided as per the Statute and therefore no reduction in sentence also legally and practically possible. In view of the matter, the sentence is also to be confirmed.

22. In the result, this Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are confirmed. As a sequel thereof, the order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands cancelled and the bail bond also stands cancelled.

23. The accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court shall execute the sentence forthwith.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court for compliance and further steps.