Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2008
Sameerkumar Prakash Awasare, Age about 27 years, residing at
Gavpadve, Taluka Rajapur, District – Ratnagiri
At present Kolhapur Central Jail … Appellant
(Ori.Accused No.1)
Station, District Ratnagiri), through the
Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay … Respondent
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w Ms. Savvy Kolhekar, Mr. Divesh Mehani and Mr. Kunal Nitin Pednekar for the Appellant/Applicant
Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State
THURSDAY, 4th JANUARY 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th June 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions SQ Pathan 1/31 Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.8/2007, convicting the appellant, as under: - for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life; - for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment (`RI’) for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer RI for 3 months; - Both the said sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Vide the very same judgment and order, co-accused No. 2-Sagar Kambale was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged, for the reasons set-out in the said judgment and order.
2 The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: SQ Pathan 2/31 July 2006, Dipak Awasare went to meet his nephew-Sameerkumar (appellant) to collect his share of money/income of the mango trees, from the appellant. As Dipak did not return, a missing complaint was lodged by PW 1-Dilip Awasare on 22nd July 2006. On 23rd July 2006, the dead body of Dipak was found floating in a well in the land of Vasant Awasare (PW 2). Pursuant thereto, an ADR was registered on 23rd 2006 by PW 14-Prabhakar Sawant. On 24th July 2006, PW 1- Dilip Awasare lodged an FIR as against the appellant and coaccused-Sagar Kambale alleging offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, statements of several witnesses came to be recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed as against the appellant and coaccused-Sagar Kambale in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed by the learned SQ Pathan 3/31 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajapur, to the Court of Sessions, on 25th January 2007. September 2007, charge was framed as against the appellant and co-accused-Sagar Kambale, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses i.e. PW1-Dilip Madhukar Awasare, first informant and brother of deceased; PW2-Vasant Sakharam Awasare, Panch to the Inquest Panchanama; PW3-Suresh Shankar Girkar, Panch to the recovery of chappal, umbrella and weapon `Tas’ at the instance of the appellant; PW4-Madhusudan Dipak Awasare, son of the deceased on motive; PW5-Mahendra Prabhakar Manjarekar, panch to the recovery of motorcycle and clothes at the instance of the appellant; PW6-Sadanand Vishnu Awasare, who made inquiry with the workers of the appellant, as to whether appellant was at home at the relevant time, at the behest of the deceased-Dipak; PW7-Suresh Balkrishna Gurav, SQ Pathan 4/31 Panch to the recovery of rope at the instance of co-accused No.2- Sagar Kambale; PW8-Ajay Sadashiv Bhosale, Village Kotwal, who had last seen the deceased with the appellant on 20th July 2006; PW9-Sunil Narayan Gurav, the carpenter, who was working in the house of the appellant, to show that they had not seen the appellant on 21st July 2006; PW10-Rupali Kunjvihari Narkar, to whom extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant; PW11-Nilam Kunjvihari Narkar i.e. mother of PW10, from whom a gunny bag containing coconuts were taken by the appellant, however, a different gunny bag was returned by the appellant (it is alleged by the prosecution that the gunny bag taken from PW10 was used by the appellant in the commission of the murder of the deceased i.e. by putting stones in the gunny bag and tying it to the deceased); PW12-Dr. Mahendra Gavade- Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased; PW13-Suresh Shankar Manve, Police Inspector who conducted the investigation in the said case; and PW14-Prabhakar Sawant, Police Sub-Inspector who received a call from Police Patil SQ Pathan 5/31 with respect to a dead body being found in the Well of village Padave. The said Officer has recorded the ADR on 23rd 2006. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial and false implication. No witness was examined by the appellant in support of their defence.
3 After a full-fledged trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, convicted and sentenced the appellant in Sessions Case No.8/2007, as stated aforesaid in para 1 of this judgment.
4 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P for the respondent-State.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the three circumstances by cogent, legal and admissible evidence. He submits that the prosecution SQ Pathan 6/31 has failed to prove motive, having regard to what was deposed to by PW1-Dilip Awasare, brother of the deceased i.e. there was no dispute between the parties since the land was already partitioned. He further submits that as far as last seen is concerned, the evidence of PW8-Ajay Bhosale cannot be relied upon, more particularly, because although the said witness is alleged to have seen the deceased with the appellant on 20th 2006, he had not informed the same to any person till 26th 2006 i.e. till his statement was recorded by the police. He submits that it is not believable, that despite there being few houses and considering that search was going on for Dipak, that PW[8] being a Kotwal of the village, would not inform the relatives, what he had seen. He submits that the statement of PW[8] having been recorded belatedly, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the said evidence.
6 As far as extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW10-Rupali Narkar is concerned, learned counsel SQ Pathan 7/31 for the appellant submits that the evidence of PW10-Rupali would reveal the circumstance under which she made the said statement i.e. PW10’s mother was summoned by the police in connection with the gunny bag found (containing stones) attached to the dead body; that the extra-judicial confession was made on 22nd July 2006, whereas, PW10’s statement was recorded on 28th July 2006, six days after the disclosure was made to her by the appellant and, that there are several material omissions in her evidence, with respect to what the said witness deposed in her 161 and 164 statements and as such, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of the said witness. He submits that the learned Judge has also disbelieved that the gunny bag which was allegedly taken by the appellant from PW11-Nilam Narkar (PW10’s mother), was the very same gunny bag, containing stones, which was found tied to the dead body.
7 Learned A.P.P supports the judgment and order and submits that no interference is warranted in the same. SQ Pathan 8/31
8 Before we proceed to analyse the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would be apposite to consider the law vis-avis the circumstantial evidence.
9 The Apex Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargotkar v. State of Madya Pradesh[1] has, in para 12 held as under:
SQ Pathan 10/31 Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”
11 We have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and for the reasons set-out herein-under, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. SQ Pathan 11/31
12 The prosecution case admittedly rests entirely on circumstantial evidence i.e. the circumstances of (I) motive, (ii) last seen and (iii) extra-judicial confession. Admittedly, the trial Court has not relied upon the circumstances of recovery of chappal, umbrella, tas, motorcycle, clothes at the instance of the appellant, as the said recovery was found to be doubtful and not incriminating. It was also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that either the chappal, umbrella or weapon i.e. tas were used in the commission of the offence. It is not the prosecution case that tas was used in the commission of the murder of Dipak.
13 As far as motive is concerned, the prosecution in support of its case, examined PW1-Dilip Awasare, brother of the deceased; and PW4-Madhusudan Awasare (son of the deceased). PW1-Dilip Awasare has stated that the appellant is his nephew and that he has three brothers i.e. Vijay, Gurunath and Dipak (deceased); that Dipak used to reside at village Bandar Padave and that Bandar Padave is a part of village Gavpadave; that Dipak SQ Pathan 12/31 would reside at their ancestral house at Gavpadave and that the appellant was also residing at village Gavpadave; that they had ancestral land at village Gavpadave and that the brothers and the appellant had got a share in the said land; that there was a Civil Suit regarding that land and the same was decided in the year 2005, however, actual partition by metes and bounds was not effected; that in their absence, Dipak would look after the agricultural land and that the appellant would get share in the income of the agricultural land; and that the appellant would demand money for his share. According to PW1-Dilip Awasare, on 21st July 2006, he received a call from Balkrishna Tambe at about 12:30 p.m, informing him that Dipak’s wife and son had met and informed him that Dipak had left the house on 20th July 2006 at 7:30 a.m, however had not returned; that Balkrishna informed him on phone that while leaving, Dipak had told his wife that he would go to the appellant for demanding money; that he told Balkrishna that he would finish his work and return home; that on finishing SQ Pathan 13/31 his work, when he returned to his village Gavpadave at about
3.00 p.m on 21st July 2006 and inquired with Dipak’s wife and son-Madhusudan, they disclosed that on 20th July 2006, Dipak left home to supply milk, as was his daily morning routine and while leaving, had told them that he would go to the appellant’s house for demanding money towards his share in the mango orchard; that Dipak’s wife and son also informed him, that Dipak had returned empty milk bottles through Mahadev Walam and had gone to meet the appellant and thereafter, did not return. According to PW[1], Madhusudan (PW[4]) told him that while taking search of Dipak, he met Siddharth Kambale (not examined) at village and Siddharth Kambale told him that Dipak had met him and had requested him to accompany him to the appellant’s house to demand money, however, Siddharth did not accompany Dipak, since he had some other assignment. PW[1] has further stated that he learnt from Dipak’s wife and son that Dipak had gone to Babu (not examined) and Sadanand Awasare (PW[6]) and had sent Sadanand (PW[6]) to appellant’s house to find out SQ Pathan 14/31 whether appellant was available and that Sadanand told Dipak that appellant was not available. According to PW[1], he further learnt from Dipak’s wife and son that Dipak left the house of Sadanand (PW[6]) and Babu Awasare (not examined) by stating that he would go to Mayekar Mangar, where the construction work of appellant’s house was going on and that he would return for taking lunch. According to PW[1], he and family members of Dipak searched for Dipak, however, he could not be traced, hence, they returned home; that on the next day i.e on 22nd 2006, he went to Rajapur Police Station and lodged a missing report, which is at Exhibit 19 and thereafter, continued with their search. He has stated that while taking search, he learnt from the servants of Sahadev Dhumal (not examined), that Dipak had passed from that place on the earlier day at about 10:30 a.m and had told them that he was going to appellant's house; that they continued with the search even on 23rd July 2006; that while taking search, they came across a dead body of a male, floating in a well in the land of Vasant Awasare (PW[2]); that the dead body SQ Pathan 15/31 was identified, as being that of Dipak; that he made a call to the Police Patil of the village informing about the same and that the Police Patil called the concerned police station; that at about 6:00 p.m, the police came to the Well and removed the dead body; that there was a string around the waist of the dead body and another end of the string was around the neck; that a gunny bag was attached to the string and it was fastened on the chest and there were four stones in the gunny bag; that there were hand gloves in both the feet and in one palm of the deceased; that there were black scars all over the body. Accordingly, inquest panchanama was recorded by the police and the dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem. After post-mortem of the dead body was done, the body was cremated and thereafter, PW[1] went to Rajapur Police Station and lodged a complaint as against the appellant and co-accused-Sagar, alleging the aforesaid offences. The said FIR is at Exhibit 18. In the cross-examination of this witness, it has come on record that being the income from the mango orchard, the SQ Pathan 16/31 same was taken by Dipak, however, he could not state the amount; that he never inquired with Dipak about income from the mango orchard; that the family of the appellant was in possession of the mango orchard for about ten years prior to the death of Dipak; that there was no dispute between their branch and branch of Dipak over share of income of mango orchard and the relations between the appellant on the one hand and Dipak on the other, were smooth. He has further stated that he was not aware whether they were on visiting terms. In the crossexamination, the distances between the house of the appellant, the witnesses, and the place where mango orchard is situated, were brought on record. PW[1], in his cross-examination, has admitted that a group of 20 to 25 persons were taking search of Dipak and that he was present when the dead body was found, till it was sent for post-mortem; that the appellant had come to the Well, when the process of lifting of the dead body was in progress and that he did not ask the appellant about the deceased; and that when they were lifting the dead body from the Well, SQ Pathan 17/31 Babu Awasare (not examined), Sadanand Awasare (PW[6]) and Vilas Awasare (not examined) were also present when the dead body was removed in the presence of the police and the Police Patil. PW[1], in his cross-examination, has further stated that his complaint was recorded by the police at the Well and his signature was obtained on the same and that in the said complaint, he had mentioned the name of the appellant. Although a suggestion was made to the said witness that the relations between him and the deceased were strained over income from mango orchard, as there was a quarrel between him and the deceased, the said suggestion has been denied by the said accused. As far as PW[1] is concerned, he was examined on the point of motive. We find no real dispute/motive for the appellant to have committed the murder of deceased, having regard to the evidence that has come on record. In para 1 of the examinationin-chief of the said witness, it has come on record that the deceased was looking after the agricultural land and that the SQ Pathan 18/31 appellant would get his share in the income of the agricultural land and the appellant used to demand money for his share, whereas, on the other hand, it has come in the cross-examination, that the appellant was in possession of the mango orchard for about 10 years, prior to Dipak’s demise. It is the prosecution case that the deceased has gone to demand money from the appellant. Infact, in para 8 of the cross-examination of PW[1], it has come on record that the income from the mango orchard was taken by the deceased and that he had never made any inquiry with Dipak, regarding the income of the mango orchard and that the family of the appellant was in possession of mango orchard for about ten years prior to Dipak’s demise and there was no dispute between any of the branches in the family and that the relations of Dipak on the one hand and the appellant on the other, were smooth. It has also come in the evidence that the appellant was present at the time when the dead body of Dipak was removed from the Well on 23rd July 2006. There is also discrepancy as to when the FIR was registered. In SQ Pathan 19/31 his examination-in-chief, PW[1] has stated that he had gone to Rajapur Police Station to register a complaint after Dipak was cremated, whereas, in his cross-examination, he has stated that the police recorded his complaint at the Well. Therefore, we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the evidence of PW[1] vis-a-vis motive.
14 As far as PW4-Madhusudan Awasare, son of deceased is concerned, he has stated that his father has three brothers and they had joint property and mango plants at village Padave; that a Civil Suit for partition of the family land was pending and that the Civil Suit was decided, however, partition was not effected by metes and bounds. PW[4] has further deposed that the appellant would collect income of mango trees and that his father used to demand his share in the income of mango trees from the appellant, however, the appellant would deny such share. He has stated that the appellant had not given their share of income for the year in which the incident had taken place. He has stated that SQ Pathan 20/31 his father used to insist the appellant to pay his share. According to PW[4], his father left the house on 20th July 2006 at 7:30 a.m to supply milk at village and thereafter, was to visit the appellant to demand his share of income. He has stated that after sometime, one Mahadev Walam (not examined) came to their house with empty bottles and told them that his father had sent a message that he was going to meet the appellant to demand money and that his father did not return home thereafter. According to PW[4], on 21st morning, they started searching for their father; that they met Sadanand Kambale (not examined), who told him that Dipak had met him and asked him to accompany him to appellant's house but as he had some work, he did not accompany his father and his father left for the appellant's house; that thereafter, appellant met him (PW[4]) and that he questioned him about his father and that the appellant told him that his father had not come to him; that he went to village Padave, where he met Sadanand Awasare (PW[6]); that Sadanand told him that he met his father at the house of Babu Awasare and that his father SQ Pathan 21/31 had asked Sadanand to find out whether the appellant was at his house; pursuant to which, Sadanand told him that he had gone to the house of appellant and was told by the workers, that the appellant was not at home; that Sadanand told PW[4] that his father told him that he was going to Mangar, where construction of the house of the appellant was in progress. According to PW[4], they tried to search for Dipak, however, he could not be traced; that pursuant thereto, he made phone calls to his uncle-Dilip and uncle-Vijay about missing of his father; that on 21st, his uncle- Dilip and uncle-Vijay came to their house; pursuant to which, missing complaint was lodged. PW[4] has further stated that they searched for Dipak on 22nd July 2006, however, he could not be traced; that on 24th July 2006, he learnt that a dead body of his father was found in a Well, pursuant to which, his uncle (PW[1]) lodged the FIR. In the cross-examination, the distances between the houses of various witnesses as well as that of the appellant, were brought on record. In the cross-examination, it is also brought SQ Pathan 22/31 on record, the persons, PW[4] met during the search for his father. PW[4] has stated that on 21st July 2006, when his uncle came to his house, he told him that he had met the appellant and had made inquiries with him. He has further admitted that on 21st, neither him nor his uncle made any attempt to contact the appellant. He has further stated that he was not aware whether his uncle had made any efforts to contact the appellant on 22nd and 23rd
2006. He has further admitted that although, he had suspicion on the appellant, on 21st and 22nd July 2006, they did not lodge any complaint with the police as against the appellant. As far as the evidence of PW[4] is concerned, part of the evidence is hear-say, hence, inadmissible. Admittedly, some of the witnesses whose names were disclosed by the said witnesses to the effect that the deceased had told them that he was going to meet the appellant, have not been examined. Vis-a-vis motive, we do not find that there was strong motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased, more particularly, having SQ Pathan 23/31 regard to what has come in the evidence of PW[4], and so also, the brother of the deceased i.e. PW[1].
15 As far as circumstance of last seen is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW8-Ajay Bhosale. Admittedly, the said witness is a village Kotwal of village Sakhar and resides at Padave. According to PW[8], on 20th July 2006, he had gone to the house of the appellant for recovery of entertainment charges from him i.e. D.T.H. Tax. He has stated that the appellant, when asked for the said charges, told him that he did not have money and that he would pay the same on the next day, pursuant to which, he left the appellant's house. He has further stated that while he was climbing the Niwayeecha Chad on a motorcycle, he saw Dipak (deceased) standing under a cashew nut tree; that Dipak asked him where he was going, pursuant to which, he told him that he was going to Chavan Wadi. He has further stated that after he crossed a distance of 10 to 15 paces, a motorcycle overtook him, pursuant to which, his attention was drawn to the SQ Pathan 24/31 motorcycle; that the appellant got down from the motorcycle and was talking to Dipak. He has further stated that at about 1:00 p.m, while returning from Chavan Wadi, he noticed appellant on a motorcycle and that co-accused Sagar Kambale was riding pillion on the same. Admittedly, the statement of the said witness was recorded on 26th July 2006 by the police. There are omissions which have come in the evidence of the said witness with respect to what he allegedly heard i.e. the conversation that took place between the appellant and the deceased. The said witness was partly declared hostile. The evidence with respect to last seen of the deceased with the appellant does not inspire confidence and as such, we do not find it safe to place reliance on the same. As noted above, PW[8] is a village Kotwal; there was search going on in the village with respect to Dipak missing. In these circumstances, it is most unlikely that the village Kotwal would not divulge to any member of the deceased family that he SQ Pathan 25/31 had seen Dipak with the appellant. Having regard to the admissions that have come in the cross-examination as well as PW8’s overall evidence, we do not find PW[8] to be a reliable witness.
16 Coming to the last circumstance i.e. extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW10-Rupali, the said evidence also suffers from several infirmities and as such, we find it unsafe to place implicit reliance on the same. According to PW10-Rupali, she and the appellant were to get married. She has stated that the appellant would come to their house to purchase coconuts; that on 20th July 2006, the appellant came to their house and purchased 30 coconuts and took the same in a gunny bag; that on 21st July, the appellant came to their house at about 10:00 a.m and returned the gunny bag; that at about 12:30 p.m, the appellant again came to her house and disclosed that his uncle-Dipak was missing, pursuant to which, the appellant and her brother went to Rajapur; that they SQ Pathan 26/31 returned home at about 7:00 to 7:30 p.m; that Dipak was still not found; that the appellant and her brother left her house to go to the house of Dipak (deceased); that her brother and the appellant returned at about 9:00 to 9:30 p.m; that her mother asked the appellant as to whether Dipak was traced, to which, the appellant replied in the negative; that the appellant also disclosed that Dipak had disclosed that he was going to his (appellant's) house and therefore, police would come to interrogate him; that after taking evening meal, the appellant returned; that in the morning of 22nd appellant again came to her house, pursuant to which, her mother asked him whether Dipak was traced, to which, appellant replied in the negative; that the appellant looked frightened, and told them, that Dipak should be traced or else, the police would come after him; that her mother told the appellant that if he has not done anything, then he should not be frightened; that the appellant replied that since Dipak had left to meet him, the police would contact him; and that after the said conversation, her mother went inside. According to PW10, after SQ Pathan 27/31 her mother (PW11) went inside, she asked the appellant as to whether he had killed the deceased, to which, he replied in the affirmative and disclosed that he (deceased) would come to him to demand money and therefore, he killed the deceased; that on hearing this, she became quiet; and that the appellant told her that since he had killed the deceased, he will not be seen again. The said disclosures allegedly made by the appellant to PW10 have come by way of omission. It is pertinent to note that the statement of PW10 was recorded on 28th July 2006, belatedly, after more than 6 days of finding of the dead body. It appears that the 161 statement of the said witness was recorded on 28th July and 164 on 18th August 2006. In the cross-examination of PW10, it has come that her mother (PW11) was called for interrogation on 25th July 2006 and that she had not disclosed about the disclosure made by the appellant to her, till her statement was recorded on 28th July 2006. She has further admitted that despite her mother disclosing to her, that she was summoned to the police station in connection with the said case, SQ Pathan 28/31 she had not disclosed the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to her. It is pertinent to note that the said witness in her 164 statement, has stated that in zest/fun, she asked the appellant whether he had killed Dipak, to which he replied in the affirmative. This is all what has been disclosed by PW10 in her 164 statement. Thus, the alleged disclosure made by the appellant to PW10, are improvements. It has further come in the cross-examination of PW10 that she was detained in the police station, throughout the day on 28th July 2006, when her statement was recorded. The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to the said witness also does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, it is a weak piece of evidence and is not corroborated by any other evidence.
17 Considering the aforesaid, we do not find that the prosecution has proved its case as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also pertinent to note that there is no SQ Pathan 29/31 explanation offered by the prosecution as to how hand gloves were found on both the feet of the deceased and on his one hand. It is also pertinent to note and as evident from the evidence of PW13 and PW14, the Investigating Officers, there was no needle of suspicion pointing to the complicity of the appellant, till the registration of the FIR on 23rd June 2023. PW14 in his evidence has categorically stated that when he recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. PW[1], in the AD inquiry, the complainant i.e. PW[1] did not express suspicion against anybody. He has further stated that the complainant (PW[1]) was with him, till the postmortem was over on 24th July 2006.
18 Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has forged the chain of circumstances as required to be done in a case of circumstantial evidence and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, the following order is passed: SQ Pathan 30/31 ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed; ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 30th June 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.8/2007, convicting and sentencing the appellant, is quashed and set-aside; iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence, with which he is charged. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. iv) The fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. SQ Pathan 31/31