JUDGMENT : P.N. GOEL, J. 1. Bhagwan Ram Tamta has been convicted under Sections 342 and 218 IPC. Lila Singh has been convicted u/s 342 IPC. 2. On 5.8.1973 Bhagwan Ram Tarata, Appellant was attached to police station Kashipur as Sub-Inspector. Lila Singh was attached as constable. In connection with the investigation of an offence u/s 436 IPC the Appellants left the police station in a police jeep. When they returned to the police Station, they got an entry made in the general diary in which it was indicated in what manner the investigation for the offence u/s 436 IPC was conducted. 3. On 6.8.1973 dead body of one Roshan was found on the road. Sri Jaipal Singh, Station Officer, Kashipur, PW-14, came to know that Roshan died in police custody. Thereupon the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. N.C. Pandey, PW-10, held autopsy on the dead body on 7.8.1973 at 8.15 A.M. 6 ante-mortem injuries were found. One of the injuries was on the scalp. In the opinion of Dr. Pandey, Roshan died of head injury. 4. The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Ram Tamta and Lila Singh had illegally arrested Roshan and that they did not mention this fact in the general diary. 5. In all 15 witnesses were examined before the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Kumaun (Nainital). The Additional Sessions Judge found that the witnesses were not prepared to speak due to police pressure. On the basis of the statements recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants. 6. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses produced at the trial have been perused with the assistance of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants in the presence of the State counsel. No witness has stated that the Appellants had arrested Roshan. Therefore, there was no substantive evidence whatsoever in the case against the Appellants. Statements recorded by the investigating Officer during investigation u/s 161 can only be used for the purposes of contradiction. These statements cannot even be used for the purpose of corroboration. These statements are not substantive evidence at all. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge was wholly in error in acting upon the statements u/s 101 Code of Criminal Procedure. He should have known the above basic principle of law. 7. As there is no evidence against the Appellants in the case, the conviction cannot be maintained. These statements are not substantive evidence at all. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge was wholly in error in acting upon the statements u/s 101 Code of Criminal Procedure. He should have known the above basic principle of law. 7. As there is no evidence against the Appellants in the case, the conviction cannot be maintained. 8. Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of both the Appellants recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun are set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They will not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.