Dismissed

Murugan, Aged 39 Years, v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC26 Nov 2021CRL A/434/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging conviction for double murder and rape. The court held that DNA evidence matching the accused to seminal stains on the victim's clothing, combined with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove guilt despite minor procedural flaws.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Murugan, Aged 39 Years, Vs State Rep by Its — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 18.11.2021

¶3

DELIVERED ON : 26.11.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.A.No.434 of 2018

¶7

Murugan

¶8

...Appellant / Sole Accused

¶9

vs.

¶10

State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.214/2008 ...Respondent / Complainant

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.148/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Needhimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, dated 20.12.2012

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.Muruganantham

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.HEMALATHA, J.

¶15

The Criminal Appeal is against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in S.C. No.148 of 2019 on 20.12.2012. The accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 449, 302(2 counts) and 392 ( 2 counts), 376(1) & 201 IPC and sentenced as under:

¶16

S. No.	Conviction		Sentence
1.	U/s. 342 IPC	6 months	Rigorous Imprisonment and
		a fine	of Rs.500/- in default,
		Rigorous month.	Imprisonment for one

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

S. No.		Conviction	Sentence
2.	U/s.	449 IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
3.	U/s. IPC	302 (2counts)	Life Imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each count in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for each count.
4.	U/s. IPC	392 (2 counts)	10 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each count and a find of Rs.2,000/- on each count in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
5.	U/s.	376 (1) IPC	Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
6.	U/s.	201 IPC	7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

¶19

The prosecution case is a spine chilling tale of two murders and one rape. Both the mother and the daughter were murdered in the wee hours of 05.07.2008 and the daughter was raped before the murder while the mother was mutilated with both her ears cut and thrown aside.

¶20

The prosecution version is that the victims, mother Meenatchi, aged 35 years, and her daughter, Selvi, aged 18 years, were working in Sakthi Thai Poultry farm, Anamalai, Coimbatore District. The family consisted of father (P.W.2), son (P.W.3) and both the deceased and they were living in the house allotted to them in the poultry farm campus itself. P.W.2, Murugan, along with the two deceased were employed in the farm and engaged in feeding chicken and cleaning up the farm. Their duty used to commence as early as 4.00A.M - 4.30 A.M., daily and on the fateful day of 5th July 2008, the mother was found murdered in a ruthless manner with both her ears cut and her jewellery were found missing. The daughter Selvi was also physically attacked and dragged to a near by place in the farm and was raped before being strangulated using her dupatta. The body of the daughter Selvi was found in a pit near a coconut tree in a nude state with both her hands tied up behind her back. One Kaliyugavaradhan (P.W.5) who lived in the third house

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

from that of the P.W.2 Murugan did not go for duty that day, while Murugan (P.W.2) along with Muniyappan (not examined) and Chinnadurai (P.W.6) had left to feed the poultry birds as usual at 4.00 A.M. The said Kaliyugavaradhan (P.W.5) who stayed back at home heard the screams of both the victims but could not come out as his door was locked from outside and the noise made by the birds in the farm was so loud that nothing was audible. However, when the men who went to feed the birds came out of the first shed and were about to enter the second shed, P.W.5 was able to inform them through the window after which his door also was opened. All of them rushed to P.W.2's residence only to find Meenatchi lying in a pool of blood with both her ears cut. A vegetable cutter and a blood stained sledge-hammer were also found. Muniyappan informed the Manager Anguraj, (P.W.1) and the supervisor Elangovan (P.W.7), who rushed to the spot. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Anamalai Police Station and P.W.1 gave a police complaint (Ex.P1). FIR in Crime No.274 of 2008 of Anamalai Police Station was registered by Somanathan (P.W.27), the Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The needle of suspicion for the crime fell on the appellant Murugan who was also working in the same farm for a short period and his services were terminated after complaints of his misbehavior with the deceased Selvi. This was strongly felt by Chinnadurai (P.W.6) and others who had seen the accused the previous day when the accused had enquired about the victim's family. However, it did not find a place in FIR.

¶23

P.W.27 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared two Observation Magazhars (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3) and two rough sketches (Ex.P36 and Ex.P37), since the crime took place in two different places, in the presence of Gurunathan (P.W.8), Village Administrative Officer, Anamalai, and his Assistant Kalimuthu (P.W.9). P.W.27 thereafter recovered a 59 cm long blood stained sledge-hammer (M.O.1), one iron vegetable cutter (Aruvaalmanai) (M.O.2), blood stained black bedsheet (M.O.3), blood stained rose colour saree (M.O.4), blood stained half saree (M.O.5), one lungi (M.O.6), blood stained earth sample (M.O.7) and ordinary earth sample (M.O.8) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P4) in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 near the body of Meenatchi. A blood stained chudidhar bottom (M.O.10), chudidhar top in two parts (M.O.9 & M.O.11), a torn brown blouse (M.O.12), red colour brief (M.O.27), blood stained earth sample (M.O.13) and ordinary earth sample (M.O.14) were also recovered under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P5) (near the body of Selvi). He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.27 conducted inquest on the bodies of the deceased Meenatchi and the deceased Selvi in the presence of panchayatdhars and prepared inquest reports (Ex.P34 and Ex.P.35). He then sent both the bodies for postmortem.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Dr.Jayasingh (P.W.16) performed the postmortem on 06.07.2008 on the bodies of the two deceased and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Meenatchi.

¶26

The following ante mortem injuries noted on the body.

¶27

Laceration noted on the following region:-

¶28

-2 x 1cm x sin deep noted on left anterior parietal region.

¶29

-2 x 1cm x sin deep noted on right anterior parietal region.

¶30

-4 x 1 cm noted on the just behind the right ear.

¶31

Left ear lobe found torn 1 cm lengh in its lower lateral end starting from the ear boring.

¶32

Incised wound 3 cms length seen in the lower margin of right ear and lower part missing.

¶33

Laceration 8 x 2 cm wih surrounding subscalpal reddish contusion 10 x 8 cms noted on middle of left partial region. Depressed fracture 6 x 5 x 1-0.5cm noted on middle of left partial bone exposing underlying torn dura 4x1 cm and lacerated brain matter 5 x 4 x 1 cm.

¶34

Laceration 7 x 2 cm with surrounding subscalpal reddish contusion 9 x 8 cms noted on midline of posterior partial region. Depressed fracture 7 x 5 x 1-0.5cm noted on midline of posterior partial region exposing underlying torn dura 8x1 cm and lacerated brain matter 8 x 4 x 1 cm.

¶35

Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages seen over entire brain surface.

¶36

Other finding:-

¶37

Peritoneal & Pleural cavities-empty. Lungs - cut section - congested. Heart; rightside few cc of fluid blood. Left side empty coronaries patent. Hyoid bone - intact. Stomach contains 10 ml of mucous fluid. No specific smell mucosa normal. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys & cut section congested. Urinary bladder - empty. Brain - already descried injury column. Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemispheres. Uterus - cut section - empty.

¶38

Opinion : The deceased would appear to have died of cranio - cerebral injuries sustained by her. Death would have occurred about 30-36 hours prior to my autopsy.

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

The said postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P13.

¶41

The doctor (P.W.16) found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Selvi.

¶42

The following ante mortem injuries noted on the body :

¶43

Curved abrasion (reddish) (? Nail mark) noted on the following region.

¶44

0.75 x 0.25 cm noted on lateral aspect of left breast, 3 cm lateral to nipple at 3 O' clock position. - 0.75 x 0.25 cm noted on 3 cm above to left nipple, at 12.00 O' clock position.

¶45

1 x 0.75 cm noted on 4 cm medial to left nipple at 9 O' clock position.

¶46

0.5 x 0.25 cm noted on medial to right side nipple at 3 O' clock position.

¶47

1 x 0.25 cm noted on 3 cm lateral to right side nipple at 7 O' clock position.

¶48

1. Laceration noted on the following region.

¶49

1 x 0.25 cm on the lower end of labia minora.

¶50

0.5 cm x entire thickness of the hymen in its 4 O' clock position.

¶51

1. Contusion (reddish) noted on the following regions.

¶52

6 x 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep noted on back of left lower arm

¶53

6 x 3 cm x 1.5 cm muscle deep noted on inner aspect of left lower arm

¶54

3 x 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep noted on back of right hand

¶55

4 x 3 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep noted on left side cheek

¶56

6 x 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep noted on left side chin

¶57

6 x 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep noted on right side cheek

¶58

Inner aspect of both lips found contused Internal Injuries :

¶59

On dissection of abdomen

¶60

Contusion (reddish) 6 x 4 cm noted on the right perinephric region. Peritoneal cavity contains about 100 ml of blood. Right kidney contused

¶61

On dissection of scalp, skull and dura :- subscalpal contusion 15 x 10 cm noted on the right fronto - parieto temporal region. Diffused sub arachnoids hemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemisphere.

¶62

On Bloodless dissection of neck

¶63

Contusion (reddish) 6 x 4 cm noted on both side of neck in the superficial and deep planes of muscles, just above to thyroid cartilage. Right side greater cornu of hyoid bone found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion.

¶64

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

Other Findings:-

¶66

Pleural cavities - empty. - Heart - Right side chambers contain few cc of fluid blood, left side chambers empty,

¶67

Coronaries patent.

¶68

Lungs cut section congested and oedematous

¶69

Stomach contains 20 ml of mucus fluid, no specific smell mucosa normal

¶70

Small intestine : contains 15 ml of bile stained fluid. No specific smell, mucosa normal - Liver, Spleen and left kidney - cut section - congested

¶71

Urinary bladder - empty. - Uterus : normal size cut section empty. Smears taken from the vagina and sent for sperm analysis and D.N.A test.

¶72

The said postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P14.

¶73

In the opinion of the doctor (P.W.16) the death of Meenatchi was due to cranio-cerebral injuries and the death of Selvi was due to violent compression of neck and multiple injuries.

¶74

On knowing that the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Kottur Police Station, he forwarded the FIR to the said police station after altering the offence from 302 to 302, 457 & 380 of IPC on 18.07.2008 and the crime number was changed into 214 of 2008 of Kottur Police Station. Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 22.07.2008 near Valparai Road at 7.30 P.M., and his confession statement was recorded in the presence of P.W.8 & P.W.9. Based on his confession, 9 beedi pieces (M.O.28) and 11 burnt match sticks (M.O.29) were recovered under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P6). Subsequently, as per the confession of the accused Murugan, one covering chain (M.O15), one Mangalsutra (M.O.16), ear studs (M.O.17) and two more covering ornaments (M.O.18 & M.O.19) were all recovered from the place where the accused had hidden, under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P7) in the presence of the same witnesses (P.W.8 and P.W.9).

¶75

On 23.07.2008, the Investigating Officer also recovered one saffron colour shirt (M.O.30), a faded grey underwear (M.O.31), a torn purple lungi (M.O.32) from the house of the accused at Thamarai Kulam under a mahazar (Ex.P38).

¶76

Ex.P15 is the forensic report submitted by Radhika Balachandran (P.W.17) and she reported that the samples of nine pieces of beedi, shirt, jatti and lungi of the accused found no blood stains in any of them and only the saliva was found on the beedi samples. The two vaginal swabs containing smears sent for

¶77

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶78

chemical examination also did not detect any semen on them. Ex.P17, another forensic report, submitted by Nirmalabai (P.W.18), a scientific assistant, reported as 'test inconclusive' for blood on the blanket, saree, half saree, cement plaster pieces, chudidhar top of pieces, blouse, chudidhar bottom, blouse, saree pieces another blouse and skirt. As regards the report on semen on chudidhar bottom it was reported as 'disintegrated'. In Ex.P20, beedi pieces were examined and found to have human saliva but the results on grouping were inconclusive. Alarmel Mangai (P.W.19), the scientific assistant of forensic Lab, Chennai, submitted the report (Ex.P22) in which the seminal stain on the lower portion of chudidhar worn by the deceased Selvi was tested for DNA typing with the DNA of the accused (extracted from his blood on his consent) and it was found to be matching.

¶79

P.W.23, the Judicial Magistrate - II, Pollachi, conducted an identification parade in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, in which the accused was identified by Gopalakrishnan (P.W.10), Saraswathi (P.W.11), Velusamy (P.W.12), and Vijay (P.W.13).

¶80

Dr.Sreenivasan (P.W.24), Director Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, performed the potency test on the accused and reported (Ex.P31) that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was impotent.

¶81

Saraswathi (P.W.11) had seen the accused at 5.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence when he enquired about the timing of the bus at the Iyyamadai bus stop. Veluchamy (P.W.22) was the conductor in bus No.10 Iyyamadai bus stop. He remembered having seen the regular passenger P.W.11 and also the accused whom he saw the first time. Both P.W.11 and P.W.12 identified the accused in the Identification Parade. After completing investigation, the Investigation Officer laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi, in P.R.C.No.16/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 449,302 (2 counts), 392(2 counts), 376(1) and 201 IPC.

¶82

Heard, Mr.T.Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶83

The following glaring deficiencies in the prosecution case were pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.

¶84

1. The conviction was purely based on circumstantial evidence which had many missing links and nothing much could be proved beyond any reasonable doubt as required in criminal juris prudence.

¶85

1. The prime witnesses to all the seizure mahazars one Gurunathan (P.W.8), Village Administrative Officer,

¶86

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶87

Anamalai, and his assistant Kalimuthu (P.W.9) were not present when the seizures took place on different dates. P.W.8 further deposed that he had signed as witness only after 10 days at the police station.

¶88

The Identification Parade was not done properly as two of the witnesses P.W.11 and P.W.12 deposed that they were already shown the accused before the Identification Parade.

¶89

Per contra, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there is no missing link in the chain of events as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and that the accused was also seen by more than one person in the vicinity of the occurrence of crime immediately before and after the offence. It was also contended that there was previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused and that it was a result of his misbehaviour with the deceased Selvi causing his termination from the job as deposed by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6.

¶90

The prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence in the instant case as there were no direct eye witness to the crime. Without doubt it was a heinous crime committed on the mother and the daughter duo who apparently were caught unawares and overpowered by the assailants. The prosecution has made up the case for murder for gain as well as murder for lust.

¶91

The entire case rests on the act of the accused when he was in employment in the farm for hardly eighteen days, from 01.06.2008 to 18.06.2008, out of which according to the Manager Auguraj (P.W.1), the accused was on leave for many days. P.W.1 as well as Elangovan (P.W.7), the supervisor also had deposed that the accused was living with his wife in his quarters allotted by them and vacated the same on 18th of June when his service was terminated. It is also in evidence that the wife of the accused Dhanam was also employed in the same Poulty farm. P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.5 to P.W.7 have also deposed about the misbehaviour of the accused with the deceased Selvi and his removal from service consequent upon the complaint. The police complaint (Ex.P.1) was given by the Manager of the Poultry farm and not by the husband of the deceased Meenatchi. Another intriguing aspect is that one Muniappan, who was reportedly with Murugan (P.W.2), Chinnadurai (P.W.6) and Kaliyugavarathan (P.W.5), has not been examined though it has been told that he was the one who informed the Manager P.W.1. Kaliyugavarathan (P.W.5) was a new employee and he has deposed that he did not join the other 3 co-employees to the poultry farm and stayed back in his room. He found himself locked up from outside when he heard a scream and he had to wait for sometime till he found the three persons come out of the first shed and walk towards the second shed. He called them through

¶92

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶93

the window. The three others first opened his door and then all the four went to the room of Murugan (P.W.2) only to find P.W.2's wife lying in a pool of blood. It has also been deposed by him that immediate suspicion was on the accused and that he also informed the police about seeing the accused the previous day evening. It was also the version of P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 that when the accused was expelled from the farm he had vowed to take revenge on the deceased Meenatchi and Selvi. Elangovan (P.W.7) has also highlighted on two aspects that of the remote chances of an outsider entering the poultry farm premises due to the presence of a watchman at the entrance and also due to the loud noise of 4000 odd poultry birds especially at the time of their feeding which used to take place from 4 a.m. onwards daily. Besides these witnesses who had seen the accused on the way to Anamalai from the poultry farm, Mariammal (P.W.4), a vegetable vendor and Velusamy (P.W.12), a bus conductor of the route No.10 of the bus have also seen the accused on 05.07.2008 early in the morning between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. In fact, Mariammal had seen him waiting for the bus in the Iyyamadai bus stop when he had also enquired her about the timing while Velusamy had seen him board the bus along with the vendor P.W.4. The possibility of knowing or recognising a stranger in a small village like Anamalai where the poultry farm was situated is very high and therefore their statements cannot be brushed aside. They also identified the accused in the Identification Parade.

¶94

It is relevant at this juncture to mention the statements of the Manager (P.W.1) about the accused. According to him, the accused used to leave the farm at 6 p.m. in his T.V.S moped and come back only the next day morning even though his wife and children were living with him in the quarters provided to him. Another pertinent aspect is regarding the employees. According to Kaliyugavarathan (P.W.5), he along with Chinnadurai (P.W.6) joined the farm only on 01.07.2008 i.e. 4 days before the occurrence of the crime and Muniappan had joined a couple of days before they joined. So it is clear that besides Murugan (P.W.2), his family members, only P.W.1 and P.W.7 in the farm were in the know of things. They were also in the suspect list as the police had made an extensive investigation to zero in on the culprit. Secondly we also find no reason as to why the new employees should or could have any grudge against the accused. The strange behaviour of the accused when he threatened P.W.2 and his family especially the female members of dire consequences cannot be taken lightly. There is always a possibility that in such sensational case the police officials are overawed with not many clues available in the form of an eye witness. While the murder of Meenatchi can be termed as gruesome due to the fact that she was hit repeatedly on the head with a sledge hammer, her ears were also

¶95

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶96

cut off showing the psychopath in the killer. As regards the second murder of the young girl Selvi, it is more horrific since her hands were tied behind her back when her body was found to lie fully nude in a pit. It was the case of the prosecution that she was also attacked with the sledge hammer after attacking her mother and when she fell unconscious she was dragged till the pit where she sexually assaulted and strangulated. Even though the swab test of her vagina did not yield any result and all other material objects also could not prove the guilt of the accused, her chudidhar bottom which had seminal stains was further analysed for DNA typing by taking the blood of the accused. In this test, the DNA of the accused matched with the DNA on the seminal stain found on the chudidhar bottom. The scientific assistant, Alarmelmangai (P.W.19) has categorically mentioned as to how the DNA test was performed and

¶97

how the conclusion was arrived at in her report (Ex.P22). This one scientific evidence is so overwhelming to cover up all the minor deficiencies which had been pointed out by us earlier. With a very limited number of suspect and taking into consideration the tiff the accused had with the deceased and finally his DNA getting matched with the seminal stain on the chudidhar bottom of the deceased conclusively make him guilty of this gruesome double murder. After the advent of DNA test and the acceptance of the same by incorporation of Section 53A of Criminal Procedure Code with effect from 23.06.2006, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for a DNA test especially in rape cases and in the instant case this scientific evidence has made the case a fool proof one clinching it in favour of the prosecution.

¶98

Judged on the above parameters, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution constituting circumstantial evidence coupled with scientific evidence in the form of DNA typing in support of the charge does furnish an unassailable basis to hold the appellant guilty of the charges for which he was convicted.

¶99

In the result,

¶100

(i) This Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶101

(ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, Magalir Needhimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, in S.C.No.148/2009 dated 20.12.2012, is confirmed.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶104

// True Copy //

¶105

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶106

bga

¶107

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶108

To 1.State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.214/2008 2.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, 3.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi. 4.(through) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.T.Muruganantham, Advocate SR.No.61635 SVI(CO) RVM(07/12/2021)

¶109

Crl.A.No.434 of 2018

¶110

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Murugan, Aged 39 Years, v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan, Aged 39 Years, v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Djeacandane Vs Ashok

Thangaraj @ Thangarasu Vs State Rep.by

R.Rami Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

Shri Suresh Kumar Kochar Vs The Joint Director

Palaniammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

D.Rajasingam @ Raja Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government