JUDGMENT 1. The accused-appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas for committing the murder of Smt. Bali on October 28, 1979. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. We are not required to consider the facts in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution as this case can be disposed of on a preliminary point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find considerable merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the postmortem report Ex P/15 relied upon by. that trial court for convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC cannot be read as substantive piece of evidence, as the statement of the Doctor, who performed autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Bali, was not recorded at any stage either during the course of enquiry or at the trial. 3. Section 294 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for the admission of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of these documents. Where the genuineness of any of the document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed. The Court can, however in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of section 294, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, would reveal that it does not refer to a document which cannot be read as substantive piece of evidence. The notes of postmortem examination popularly known as postmortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by medical officer while performing the postmortem examination on a dead body. It can be used to corroborate the statement of the Doctor concerned under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. A Doctor can also use it to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act, or it can be used to contradict his statement in witness box under section 145 of the Evidence Act, If the Doctor is dead or is not available for examination in the court under the circumstances mentioned in Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the postmortem examination report is admissible under Clause (2) of section 32 of the Evidence Act. 4. 4. In the face of this legal position exhibiting of postmortem report under Section 294, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the case on hand is not permissible. Simply because it has been marked as an exhibit it cannot be used as substantive piece I of evidence and the learned trial court was not correct in not examining the concerned I Doctor. In the absence of the statement of the doctor it is not possible to maintain ' the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC. 5. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for fresh trial according to law in the light of the observations already made above. 6. The accused-appellant is said to be below 21 years of age. The trial of the case is being delayed for no fault of his. We, therefore, consider it to be in the interest of justice to admit the accused on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in that Court. 7. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- M.L. Shrimal, J., Sd/- K.S. Sidhu, J.Appeal allowed and the case remanded to the trial court for fresh trial. *******