Judgment H.N. Seth, J. 1. ZAMIR Ali, resident of village Chirota, Police Station, Ganjdundwara, has come up in appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Etawah, convicting him for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. ZAMIR Ali, appellant had a sister named Bibbo. About 5 months before the incident, which took place on 27th April, 1975, Bibbo was married to Nabi Husain (PW 2), resident of village Ganeshpur, which lay at a distance of about one mile from village Sujawalpur where Ahmad Husain (PW 1), elder brother of Nabi Husain, resided. According to the prosecution Nabi Husain got an impression that Smt. Bibbo was a woman of loose character and complained about it to Zamir Ali. On 27th of April, 1975 Nabi Husain and Smt. Bibbo visited the house of Ahmad Husain in village Sujawalpur. At about 1 P. M. Nabi Husain, his wife Bibbo, Zamir Ali and one Chhotey, resident of village Ganeshpur were present at the house of Ahmad Husain and were discussing the conduct of Smt. Bibbo. Zamir Ali told his sister that there was complaints about her character and that she should not act in a manner so as to bring disgrace to the family. Smt. Bibbo kept quiet and did not utter a word. Zamir Ali then asked everybody present there to go out for ten minutes so that he may talk to his sister alone. All the inmates of the house as also Chhotey then went out leaving Zamir Ali and Smt. Bibbo alone in the house. As they reached the wall of Tullan Manihar's house they heard the shrieks of Smt. Bibbo. Thereafter they rushed back and saw that Zamir Ali was assaulting his sister with a Bugda (a sharp heavy cutting weapon). Before they could intervene, Smt. Bibbo was already dead. Ahmad Husain then took Zamir Ali to Police Station Ganjdundwara, half a mile away, and lodged the first information report of the incident at 1.30 P. M. wherein he mentioned all the facts. 3. ZAMIR Ali was taken into custody and a blood stained shirt Ext. 4 which he was wearing was taken possession of in presence of Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) and Kallu (PW 5). Bedi Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW 11) took up the investigation and visisted the house of Ahmad Husain. He recovered the blood stained Bugda (Ext. 3. ZAMIR Ali was taken into custody and a blood stained shirt Ext. 4 which he was wearing was taken possession of in presence of Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) and Kallu (PW 5). Bedi Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW 11) took up the investigation and visisted the house of Ahmad Husain. He recovered the blood stained Bugda (Ext. 5) from the spot and arranged to send the dead body of Smt. Bibbo for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S. N. Bhatnagar (PW 6) on 28th of April', 1975 at 5.30 P. M. Dr. Bhatnagar found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :- 4. ZAMIR Ali was also medically examined by Dr. N. P. Gupta (PW 7), Medical Officer of the State Dispensary at Ganjdundwara at 3.45 P. M. on 27th of April, 1975 and he found following injuries on his person :- These injuries in the opinion of the Doctor were about 4 hours old. 5. THE shirt Ex. 4 said to have been worn by Zamir Ali and recovered from his person as also the blood stained Bugda recovered from the spot and the clothes worn by the deceased were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist for report. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, the shirt Ex. 4 was stained with human blood, but it was not possible to state the group of the blood. THE Bugda was stained with human blood of group 'A', the group to which the blood stains on the clothes recovered from the person of the deceased belonged. 6. IN due course the police after completing the investigation submitted a chargesheet and appellant Zamir Ali was committed to Sessions to stand his trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Zamir Ali pleaded not guilty. He denied the prosecution case and stated that on the day of incident he was doing palle-dari at Ganjdundwara. The complainant first took him to village Chirota and thereafter to the police station. He denied that the shirt Ext. 4 belonged to him and that it was recovered from his person. He asserted that Ahmad Husain had after taking him to the police station, got hi m arrested. 7. The complainant first took him to village Chirota and thereafter to the police station. He denied that the shirt Ext. 4 belonged to him and that it was recovered from his person. He asserted that Ahmad Husain had after taking him to the police station, got hi m arrested. 7. IN order to prove it's case,, the prosecution examined Ahmad Husain (PW 1), Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) (wife of Ahmad Husain) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Head Constable Bhure Singh (PW 9) and Sub- Inspector Bedi Singh (PW 11) deposed about the lodging of the first information report Ex. Ka-1 by Ahmad Husain (PW 1) at police station Ganjdundwara at 1.20 P. M. on 26th of April, 1975. Head Constable Bhuri Singh (PW 9) also deposed about the recovery of blood stained shint Ext. 4 from the person of Zamir Ali, Bulaki Ram (PW 4) and Kallu (PW 5) were produced to corroborate the said evidence as they had been cited in the recovery memo as witnesses. Dr. S. N. Bhatnagar (PW 6) and Dr. N. P. Gupta (PW 7) proved the injuries sustained by the deceased and the accused. Constable Chandra Pal (PW8) and Constable Jodh Singh (PW 10) deposed about the movement of sealed bundles. 8. THE fact that Smt. Bibbo had been done to death by inflicting injuries upon her by Bugda (Ext. 5) in the house of Ahmad Husain (PW 1) on 27th of April, 1975 is amply born out from the evidence produced in the case. Neither was this fact disputed before trial court nor has the learned counsel for the appellant addressed any argument before us to question this pant of the prosecution case. THE main question that arose for consideration before the trial court and which also arises for consideration by us is whether on the evidence produced by the prosecution, it can be said that that it has succeeded in connecting Zamir Ali, appellant, with the crime. Needless to say that the evidence of Ahmad Husain (PW 1), who lodged the first information report, Nabi Husain (PW 2), husband of the deceased and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) wife of Ahmad Husain necessarily has a material bearing on the question. Before the trial court Ahmad Husain (PW 1) did not claim to be an eye witness of the incident. Before the trial court Ahmad Husain (PW 1) did not claim to be an eye witness of the incident. While accepting that there were complaints regarding the character of Smt. Bibbo and that Nabi Husain and Smt. Bibbo had come to his house on the day of incident, he stated that on that day he was working at a godown and that when he returned to his house, he found Smt. Bibbo lying dead with multiple injuries on her person. At that time, neither his brother Nabi Husain nor Smt. Jumeratan was present at his house. Zamir Ali worked as a palledar in his village (Sujawalpur) and his brother Nabi Husain was working at the godown of Bulaqi. Both of them came to his house. Leaving his brother near the dead body, he and Zamir Ali went to the police station to make a report about the death of Smt. Bibbo. At the police station, the officials obtained his thumb impression on a piece of paper and thereafter they detained Zamir Ali. Thereafter the police came to his house along with him and carried away the dead body of Smt. Bibbo. At this stage the prosecution sought permission of the court and was allowed to put question to him by way of cross-examination. When questioned by the prosecution, the witness stated that after putting his thumb impression, he did not ask the head constable to read over the report to him and till the date of his evidence he did not know how his sister-in-law was done to death. According to him the investigating officer did not record his statement and that he never made the statement which the investigating officer purports to have recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. He denied that he was concealing the truth as he was annoyed with the deceased and the accused was the real brother-in-law of his younger brother Nabi Husain. The witness then went on to deny that when Zamir Ali was taken to the police station he was wearing the blood stained shirt (Ex. 4). When cross-examined by the defence, he stated that he told Zamir Ali that his sister was lying dead in the court-yard. Zamir Ali came to his house weeping and fell upon his sister. He thus tried to explain the presence of bloodstains on the shirt of the accused. 4). When cross-examined by the defence, he stated that he told Zamir Ali that his sister was lying dead in the court-yard. Zamir Ali came to his house weeping and fell upon his sister. He thus tried to explain the presence of bloodstains on the shirt of the accused. When questioned by the court, the witness stated that while Zamir Ali came to his house along with lim, Zamir Ali did not accuse him and the members of his family for having killed Smt. Bibbo because he and his other family members found Smt. Bibbo to be of loose character. 9. IN his examination-in-chief Nabi Husain (PW 2) stated that on the day of incident, he and his wife had come to the house of his brother in village Sujawalpur at about 11 A.M. by that time Ms brother had already left for work at the godown. As no food was available at the house, he went to the market and from there he went to work as a labourer. When after leaving his wife at the house, he went to purchase articles, he met Zamir Ali in the way and thereafter he went away to the place of his work. After making the aforesaid statement the witness went on to say that while going to the place of work ha had left behind at the house of Zamir Ali, his sister-in-law and the children. At about 1 O clock in the day, a child came running to him and informed him that his wife had been murdered. He ruhsed back to the house and found that his wife was lying dead with multiple injuries on her person. At that time Zamir Ali was not present near the dead body and that his brother did not bring Zamir Ali along with him. Immediately after making the aforesaid statement, the witness went on to state that his brother-in-law was present at the house and that he was taken to the police station by his brother. While Zamir Ali was trying to reason it out with his sister and he along with his elder brother went out of his house and his wife was finished. When he and his brother returned from the market, Zamir Ali was mot there. Zamir Ali met him in the way and his brother took him to the police station. While Zamir Ali was trying to reason it out with his sister and he along with his elder brother went out of his house and his wife was finished. When he and his brother returned from the market, Zamir Ali was mot there. Zamir Ali met him in the way and his brother took him to the police station. At that time Zamir Ali was wearing the shirt Ext. 4. When he and his wife came to the house of Ahmad Husain in village Sujawalpur, his brother-in-law Zamiir Ali also came there at about 1'O clock. Zamir Ali tried to reason it out with Smt. Bibbo and impressed upon her that henceforth she should act properly. However, Smt. Bibbo remained silent. Zamir Ali then asked the persons present there to move away for about 10 minutes, whereupon the witness, his brother Ahmad Husain, Chhotey and sister-in-law Smt. Jumeratan went out and stood at the crossing. Thereafter they heard the shrieks of Smt. Bibbo and all of them rushed back to the house of Ahmad Husain. On entering the house, they found Smt. Bibbo lying dead., Zamir Ali then said that they need not intervene as he would himself go and present himself at the police station. Before the court the witness did not admit having actually seen Zamir Ali wielding Bugda at the deceased. As before the INvestigating Officer he had stated that when on hearing the shrieks of Smt. Bibbo he reached the house of Ahmad Husain and saw accused Zamir Ali giving Bugda blows to Smt. Biboo, the prosecution sought permission of the court and was permitted by it to put question by way of cross-examination to the witness. The prosecuting counsel then put the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. wherein the witness had stated that he had actually seen the accused wielding Bugda at Smt. Bibbo, to him and the witness admitted having made that statement. When cross-examined by the defence, the witness took a sumersault and stated that the police had on the date on which he was giving evidence told him that his wife had been killed by the accused. He did not make any application or file an affidavit before the District Magistrate. The truth was that he came to know about the murder of his wife while he was still in the market. He did not make any application or file an affidavit before the District Magistrate. The truth was that he came to know about the murder of his wife while he was still in the market. Accused Zamir Ali worked as a labourer in Ganjdundwara and not at Sujawalpur. When he came to his house, he found his wife lying dead and the accused was not present there. His brother had come to the house along with the accused and thereafter his brother and the accused went away to the police station. 10. SMT. Jumeratan (PW 3) stated that on the day of incident Nabi Husain and SMT. Bibbo had come to her house at 10 or 11 A. M. At that time she was at her house but her husband had already left for the place of his work. Leaving behind Nabi Ahmad and SMT. Bibbo at home, she also left for the godown at about 12 in the noon. When in the eventing she returned to her house along with her husband she found the dead body of SMT. Bibbo lying in the court-yard. At that time Zamir Ali was not present there. Accused Zamir Ali had arrived at her house before she left to work at the godown. While going to the place of her work, she left behind the accused, Nabi Husain and SMT. Bibbo at her house and that the accused was present when she returned to her house. Her husband then took the accused to the police station. As SMT. Jumeratan had, contrary to her earlier statement, denied her and her husband's presence at the time and place of murder, the prosecuting counsel sought permission and was permitted by the court to question her by way of cross-examination. When so questioned by the State Counsel, the witness admitted that she and her husband were present on the scene of the incident and that they saw the murder being committed. In this connection she stated that there were complaints about the character of her sister-in-law and while addressing SMT. Bibbo the accused had said, 'sister we have been sufficiently defamed' but then SMT. Bibbo remained silent. Thereafter Zamir Ali asked her, her husband Ahmad Husain and Nabi Ahmad who were present there to go out for ten minutes so that he may talk to his sister alone. Bibbo the accused had said, 'sister we have been sufficiently defamed' but then SMT. Bibbo remained silent. Thereafter Zamir Ali asked her, her husband Ahmad Husain and Nabi Ahmad who were present there to go out for ten minutes so that he may talk to his sister alone. All of them then went out and as they reached near the wall of Tullan Manihar, they heard the shrieks of SMT. Bibbo. They then came back and saw the accused, assaulting SMT. Bibbo. S'e could not say if the accused was assauiiing SMT. Bibbo with Bugda (Ext. 5). Thereafter her husband and the accused went away to the police station. When cross-examined by the defence, SMT. Jumeratan again went back of her statement made during the questioning of the State counsel and stated that usually she went out to work at the godown along with her husband at about 10 or 11 O' clock and returned to her house in the evening. On the day of incident also she had left her sister-in-law and had gone to the godown and it was only on her return that she found her lying dead. It was 1 P. M. and at that time Zamir Ali was present there but Nabi Husain was not there. In between she had been away from her house. After considering the evidence produced in the case the trial court concluded that even though Ahmad Husain had disowned lodging of the first information report, that report was in fact made by Ahmad Husain at 1.30 P.M. at police station Ganjdundwara. In that report Ahmad Husain made a statement which fully supported the prosecution case. Accused Zamir Ali was taken to the police station and after he was arrested, shirt Ex. 4 which he was wearing at that time and which was stained with human blood was taken into custody by the police. The three witnesses, namely, Ahmad Husain (PW 1), Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) being related to the accused were deliberately trying to shield him. The evidence of Ahmad Husain (PW 1) who has gone back upon what he had stated in the promptly lodged first information report and had tried to invent an explanation for presence of blood on the shirt Ext. 4 worn by Zamir Ali deserved to be ignored altogether. The evidence of Ahmad Husain (PW 1) who has gone back upon what he had stated in the promptly lodged first information report and had tried to invent an explanation for presence of blood on the shirt Ext. 4 worn by Zamir Ali deserved to be ignored altogether. However, some of the answers given by Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) indicated that murder of Smt. Bibbo took place at the house of Ahmad Husain it about 1 P. M. on 27th April, 1975; shortly before the murder, Ahmad Husain, Nabi Husain, Chhotey and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3), Zamir Ali and Smt. Bibbo were talking there. They were at that time discussing the conduct and character of Smt. Bibbo; Zamir Ali asked all of them to go out so that he may talk to his sister all alone ; shortly after these persons went out, they heard the shrieks of Smt. Bibbo when they returned to the house, they found Smt. Bibbo lying dead. The court observed that notwithstanding the fact that both these witnesses were declared hostile and were permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution and also the fact that they made inconsistent statements, their testimony did not lose all evidentiary value. Accordingly despite inconsistent statements made by these witnesses with a view to shield the appellant, it was open to the court to accept that part of their testimony which stood corroborated by the first information report lodged by Ahmad Husain at 1.30 P. M. on 27th of April, 1975, arrest of the accused at the police station and recovery of blood stained shirt Ext. 4 from his person. In the result, it accepted such parts of the statements of the two witnesses which received corroboration from the first information report and held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing it's case against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 11. LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that the evidence of Nabi Husain (PW 2) and that of Jumeratan (PW 3) was not such on which any reliance could be placed. They had made all sorts of inconsistent statements in regard to material aspects of the case as is clear from prosecution's own request for permission to cross-examine them, these witnesses were not at all credit worthy. They had made all sorts of inconsistent statements in regard to material aspects of the case as is clear from prosecution's own request for permission to cross-examine them, these witnesses were not at all credit worthy. According to him the trial court erred in picking out and placing reliance only on such parts of their statements which were in line with and received corroboration from what had been stated by Ahmad Husain in the first information report lodged by him. It was not justified in ignoring such parts of the statements of these witnesses which went in favour of the accused specially when Ahmad Husain, the maker of the first information report, had disowned the making of it and there was no reliable evidence to establish truth of the facts mentioned therein. He also contended that in the circumstances of the case, making of the first information report by Ahmad Husain at 1.30 P.M. and the recovery of shirt Ext. 4 stained with human blood from the person of the appellant, should not be accepted. Even if these two circumstances are accepted, they by themselves and unsupported by any other circumstance or evidence, would not be sufficient to establish the charge levelled against the appellant. 12. AFTER going through the evidence produced in the case and having heard learned counsel for both the parties, we are satisfied that notwithstanding the fact that Ahmad Husain, the maker of the first information report, disowned having lodged it at police station Ganjdundwara at 1.30 P. M. on 27th April, 1975 and that according to him he came to know of the incident in the evening, the first information report mentioning the prosecution case was in fact lodged by Ahmad Husain (PW 1) at the police station. Head constable Bhure Singh (PW 9) deposed that on 27th of April, 1975 he was posted at police station Ganjdundwara. On that date, Ahmad Husain came to the police station and lodged the first information report of the case on the basis of which the chik report Ext. Ka-1 was prepared by him at 1.30 P.M. Bhure Singh did not know either the accused or the informant from before. He also could not, on his own, have known the circumstances in which Smt. Bibbo had been done to death. Ka-1 was prepared by him at 1.30 P.M. Bhure Singh did not know either the accused or the informant from before. He also could not, on his own, have known the circumstances in which Smt. Bibbo had been done to death. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to show that the police officials including Bhure Singh, posted at police station Ganjdundwara, either had any animus to falsely implicate Zamir Ali in the case or to concoct a case by putting the prosecution version in the mouth of Ahmad Husain who does not appear to be a person under their influence. The fact that some information in connection with the case was conveyed at the police station at about 1.30 P. M. stands corroborated by the fact that Zamir Ali, appellant, was after being arrested, sent to State [Dispensary, Ganjdundwara, for medical examination and he was actually medically examined by Dr. N. P. Gupta (PW 7) the same day at 3.45 P. M. In these circumstances, we do not think that the evidence of Bhure Singh (PW 9) to the effect that the first information report in this case, on the basis of which chik report Ex. Ka-1 was prepared, was lodged at the police station by Ahmad Husain at 1.10 P. M. and that the testimony of Bhure Singh is not rendered unreliable because the maker of the first information report, namely, Ahmad Husain, who is interested in shielding the accused, now disowns having made it. So far as the recovery of shirt Ext. 4 from the person of accused Zamir Ali is concerned, the same stands proved by the evidence of head constable Bhure Singh (PW 9) who deposed that the said shirt was taken from the person of the accused in the presence of two public witnesses and that a Fard Ext. Ka-2 in respect thereof was immediately prepared and signed by the two public witnesses. Both the public witnesses, namely, Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) and Kallu (PW 5) had in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. stated that the said shirt had been recovered from the person of the accused in their presence. It is true that while giving evidence during the trial these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) admitted that the Fard Ext. P.C. stated that the said shirt had been recovered from the person of the accused in their presence. It is true that while giving evidence during the trial these two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) admitted that the Fard Ext. Ka-2 bore his signature but stated that when the Head Constable told him that the shirt Ext. 4 belonged to the accused and had been taken from his person, he told him that it was not correct. Thereupon the Head Constable said that he was not being included as a witness in the case. The evidence of this witness suggests that he signed the recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 containing wrong allegations when he was assured by the Head Constable that he would not be required to give evidence in this case. This explanation for signing the recovery memo containing false allegations is on the face of it not worth accepting or acting upon. Likewise Kalln (PW 5) also admitted that he had thumb marked the recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 in respect of the shirt Ext. Ka-4. He stated that the recovery of the shirt was not effected in his presence and that the Head Constable compelled him to place has thumb mark on a document. This witness also had earlier made a statement before the Investigating Officer supporting the prosecution case in this regard and he has now gone back upon that statement. As already stated, there is no reason even to suspect that in this case the police were interested in manufacturing false evidence for implicating the accused in a murder case. It is difficult to accept that the Head Constable would force an unwilling person to put his thumb impression on the Fard with a view to make him a witness. We are accordingly of opinion, that! evidence of Bulaqi Ram (PW 4) and Kallu (PW 5) does not affect the credibility of the evidence of Head Constable Bhure Singh and that the recovery of shirt (Ext. 4) bearing human blood from the person of the accused stands amply proved. 13. COMING now to the evidence of Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) we find that both these witnesses made substantial variation from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. Accordingly the prosecution sought permission of the court and was permitted to question them by way of cross-examination. 13. COMING now to the evidence of Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) we find that both these witnesses made substantial variation from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. Accordingly the prosecution sought permission of the court and was permitted to question them by way of cross-examination. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagir Singh v. The State {Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 SC 1400 learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court; should rejected the statements made by these two witnesses as a whole and that it could not utilise any portion of the same for connecting the appellant with the crime. 14. THE observations made by the Supreme Court in Jagir Singh's case (supra) led that Court too, in the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 , further examine the question as to whether in a case where a 'witness is permitted to be questioned by way of cross-examination by the party producing him, his evidence deserves to be rejected as a whole or whether law permits any portion of the same to be relied upon. While dealing with such a question, the Supreme Court pointed out that the terms "hostile" witness, "adverse" witness, "unfavourable" witness and "unwilling" witness, are all terms of English Law and that English Statute differs materially from the law contained in the Indian Evidence Act in regard to cross- examination and contradiction of his own witness by a party. Whereas the English Law does not permit a party to impeach the credit of it's own witness by giving evidence of his bad character, shady antecedents or previous conviction, Indian Law envisages such a thing to be done with the consent of the Court under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whereas the English Law does not permit a party to impeach the credit of it's own witness by giving evidence of his bad character, shady antecedents or previous conviction, Indian Law envisages such a thing to be done with the consent of the Court under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was pointed out that in some earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court this substantial difference between the Indian and the English Law was, in this regard, over-looked and that court interpreted and applied the provisions of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act (on the subject of putting questions in the nature of crass-examination to party's own witness) with reference to the meaning or the term '"adverse" in the English Statute as construed in some English decisions and enunciated the proposition that where a party calling a witness requests the court to declare him "hostile" and with the leave of the court cross-examine the witness, the evidence of the witness had to be altogether excluded from consideration in a criminal case. It pointed out that the fallacy underlying this view stemmed from the assumption that tike only purpose of cross-examination of a witness was to discredit him; it ignored the hard truth that another equally important object of cross-examination was to elicit admissions of facts which would help in building the case of the cross-examiner. When a party with the leave of the court, confronts his witness with his previous inconsistent statement, he does so in the hope that the witness might revert to what he had stated previously. If the departure from the prior statement is not deliberate but is due to faulty memory or a like cause, there is every possibility of the witness veering round to his former statement. Thus, showing faultiness of the memory in the case of such a witness would be another object of cross-examining and contradicting him by a party calling the witness. Thus, showing faultiness of the memory in the case of such a witness would be another object of cross-examining and contradicting him by a party calling the witness. In short, the rule prohibiting a party to put questions in the manner of crose-examination or in a leading form to his own witness is relaxed not because the witness has already forfeited all right to credit but because from his antipathetic attitude or otherwise, the court feels that for doing justice, his evidence will be more fully given, the truth more effectively extricated and his credit more adequately tested by questions put in a more pointed, penetrating and searching way. THE Supreme Court then quoted with approval the following remarks made by Rankin C. J. who delivered the main judgment of a Full Bench of that Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1931 Cal. 401 :- "In my opinion, the fact that a witness is dealt with under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, even when under that Section he is 'cross-examined' to credit, in no way warrants a direction to the jury that they are bound in law to place no reliance on his evidence, or that the party who called and cross-examined him can take no advantage from any part of his evidence. There is moreover no rule of law that if a jury thinks that a witness has been discredited on one point they may not give credit to him on another. THE rule of law is that it is for the jury to say............... ............THE whole of the evidence so fan as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably must go to the jury for what it is worth....................................... If the previous statement is the deposition before the committing Magistrate and if it is put in under Section 288, Cr. P.C., so as to become evidence for all pursoses, the jury may in effect be directed to choose between the two statements because both statements are evidence of the facts stated therein. But in other cases the jury may not be so directed, because prima facie the previous statement of the witness is not evidence at all against the accused of the truth of the facts stated therein. But in other cases the jury may not be so directed, because prima facie the previous statement of the witness is not evidence at all against the accused of the truth of the facts stated therein. THE proper direction to the jury is that before relying on the evidence given by the witness at the trial the jury should take into consideration the fact that he made the previous statement, but they must not treat the previous statement as being any evidence at all against the prisoner of the facts therein alleged. In a criminal case, however, the previous unsworn statement of a witness for the prosecution is not evidence against the accused on the truth of the facts stated therein save in very special circumstances, e. g., as corroboration under Section 157 of his testimony in the witness box on the conditions therein laid down. If the case be put of the previous statement having been made in the persence and hearing of the accused, this fact might under Section 8 alter the position; but the true view even then is not that the statement is evidence of the truth of what it contains, but that if the jury think that the conduct, silence or answer of the prisoner at the time amounted to an acceptance of the statement or some part of it, the jury may consider that acceptance as an admission THE King v. Norton, Percy William Adams, ((1910) 2 KB 496 and (1923) 17 Crl. App Rep. 77. But apart from such special cases, which attract special principles, the unsworn statement, so far as the maker in his evidence does not confirm and repeat it, cannot be used at all against the accused as proof of the truth of what it asserts". The Supreme Court then went on to express it's own opinion on the subject in following words :- "From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider, in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. It is for the Judge of fact to consider, in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, tire credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record that part of his testimony which, he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto." 15. THE Supreme Court then explained the observations made by it in Jagir Singh's case, AIR 1975 SC 1400 , in following words :- "It was in the context of such a Ease, where, as a result of the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, the prosecution witness concerned stood discredited altogether, that this Court in Jagir Singh v. State AIR 1975 SC 1400 , (supra), with the aforesaid rule of caution - which is not to be treated as a rule of law-in mind, said that the evidence of such a witness is to be rejected enbloc." 16. IN view of what has been stated by the Supreme Court in Sat Paul's case (supra) what we have to consider is whether as a result the questions put to the two witnesses, namely, Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) by the prosecution as also those put to them in the cross-examination on behalf of the defence, they stand thoroughly discredited or whether their credit has not been completely shaken. IN case the Court comes to the conclusion that the credit of the two witnesses stands completely shattered, this Court would as a matter of prudence discard their entire evidence. If on the: other hand the Court comes to the conclusion that their credit has not been completely shaken, it can, after reading and considering their evidence as a whole, with due caution and care, accept that part of their testimony which finds support from other admissible evidence on record. If on the: other hand the Court comes to the conclusion that their credit has not been completely shaken, it can, after reading and considering their evidence as a whole, with due caution and care, accept that part of their testimony which finds support from other admissible evidence on record. A perusal of the statement made by Nabi Husain (PW 2) shows that the witness has in respects of the case, made absolutely inconsistent statements which shows that he has no respect for trutlii At one place in his examination-in-chief, the witness stated that after recaching village Sujawalpur at 11 A. M. he left his wife at the house of his brother and went to the market from where he proceeded to work as a labourer and that he met Zamir Ali in the way. The witness, however, purported to correct himself and stated that Zamir Ali was already at the house of his brother when he left for the market. Subsequently a child came running to him and informed him about the murder of his wife. According to this part of his statement in the examination-in-chief, the witness did not claim to be present on the scene of the incident. Proceeding further, the witness stated that when after receiving information of the murder he reached the house, Zamir Ali was not present on the scene, meaning thereby that immediately after the murder, Zamir Ali was not present on the scene. The witness again purported to correct himself and stated that when he reached the house, Zamir Ali was present on the scene and that he was taken to the police station by his brother. Although in the earlier [part of his evidence, he had made a statement suggesting that he was away from the house at the time when the murder of his wife took place and that he reached the house only on receiving information about it, the witness went on to state that he saw Zamir Ali trying to reason out with his sister and he along with his elder brother went out of the house and his wife was finished. When he and his brother returned from the market, Zamir Ali was not there. He met Zamir Ali in the way and 1 is brother took him to the police station. When he and his brother returned from the market, Zamir Ali was not there. He met Zamir Ali in the way and 1 is brother took him to the police station. In the subsequent portion of his examination-in-chief, the witness again made a statement supporting the: prosecution case and stated that on hearing the shrieks of Smt. Bibbo, he rushed back to the house, he found Smt. Bibbo dead and Zamir Ali told them that they need not intervene as he would himself go and present himself at the police station. Even at this stage the witness did not admit that he actually saw Zamir Ali striking Bugda blows at the deceased. The prosecuting counsel sought permissions of the Court to put questions to this witness by way of cross-examination primarily with a view to elicit from him that the witness had actually seen Zamir Ali giving Bugda blows to Smt. Bibbo and for that purpose they elicited an admission from the witness that such a statement had been made by him during investigation. When cross-examined by the defence, the witness went back on that portion of his statement in his cross-examination wherein he had averred that he was present on the scene at the time when Smt. Bibbo was murdered and stated that he was not so present and the correct fact was that he reached the house only after receiving information about Smt. Bibbo's death. He also asserted that Zamir Ali reached the house subsequently. We thus find that this witness has been making mutually inconsistent statements in respect of crucial issues involved in the case and the witness is totally circumstance. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed on any portion of his evidence merely because such portion is consistent with the prosecution case or because it receives corroboration from what the witness stated under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. It is well settled that the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. cannot be utilized for this purpose. 17. COMING now to the evidence of Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) we find that like Nabi Husain (PW 2) she has given evidence in such a manner that -her credit too is completely shattered. P.C.. It is well settled that the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. cannot be utilized for this purpose. 17. COMING now to the evidence of Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) we find that like Nabi Husain (PW 2) she has given evidence in such a manner that -her credit too is completely shattered. At one place in her examination-in-chief, she made a statement suggesting that soon after the arrival of Nabi Husain and Smt. Bibbo at her house, she had left for the place of her work. She came to know about it when she returned to her house along with her husband. In other words she was not present at the house when the murder of Smt. Bibbo took place. She further stated that when she came back to her house, she did not find Zamir Ali. According to her, Zamir Ali was present at her house when she left for the place of her work. After the court permitted the prosecution to put questions to her by way of cross- examination, the witness stated that she was present on the scene and that she saw the murder being committed and she fully supported the prosecution case. When cross-examined on behalf of the defence, the witness immediately reverted tocher original statement suggesting that she in fact was not present on the scene when the murder of Smt. Bibbo took place and that it was only after she returned from the place of her work that she found Smt. Bibbo lying dead. It appears that the witness has in order to please both the prosecution and the defence, while being questioned by them, made statements supporting their respective cases. This witness also does not appear to have any respect for truth and has made absolutely inconsistent statements on the crucial issues involved in the case. In our opinion, she is totally unworthy of credit and no reliance can be placed on any portion of her evidence. As observed by us while dealing with the evidence of Nabi Husain (PW 2), no reliance can be placed on any portion of the evidence of this witness merely because it supports the prosecution version or receives corroboration from the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. 18. As observed by us while dealing with the evidence of Nabi Husain (PW 2), no reliance can be placed on any portion of the evidence of this witness merely because it supports the prosecution version or receives corroboration from the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. 18. AS already observed, no portion of the evidence given by Ahmad Husain (PW 1) connects Zamir Ali with the crime ajid as such whether he is speaking the truth or not, it is not necessary for us to comment on his evidence. If the evidence of the three witnesses, namely, Ahmad Husain (PW 1), Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) is totally ruled out of consideration, the only circumstance which the prosecution has succeeded in establishing would be that Ahmad Husain (PW 1) lodged a first information report at the police station at 1.30 P.M. on 27th of April, 1975 wherein he accused Zamir Ali for having committed the murder of Smt. Bibbo. At that time Zamir Ali was also present with him and that the shirt Ext. 4 having human blood on it was recovered from Zamir Ali's person. The contents of the FIR are not to be treated as substantive evidence and the correctness of the same; has to be established by producing evidence in the case. In this case we find that there is no reliable evidence to establish the truth of the contents of the FIR. In the circumstances, the fact that the first information report lodged by Ahmad Husain (PW 1) contained accusation against Zamir Ali will be of no consequence. Merely because Zamir Ali happened to be at the police station and on his being arrested a shirt (Ext. 4) bearing stains of human blood was taken possession of, will not be sufficient to connect Zamir Ali with the crime. 19. EVEN though we have strong reasons to think that the 3 prosecution witnesses, namely Ahmad Husain (PW 1), Nabi Husain (PW 2) and Smt. Jumeratan (PW 3) have deliberately introduced inconsistencies in their evidence, in all probability to shield Zamir Ali, still the fact remains that these 3 witnesses have betrayed themselves to be completely unworthy of credit and prudence does not require placing reliance on any portion of their statements. EVEN if it could be held that some credit of, the witnesses had been spared., only such portions of their statements could be relied upon which received support from other evidence on the record. As already stated, the contents of the first Information report lodged by Ahmad Husain (PW 1) could not be said to be substantive piece of evidence and as such it could not provide support to any portion of the statements of Nabi Husain and Smt. Jumeratan. Likewise the statements off these two witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. could not also be used to support or lend any assurance to any portion of the evidence of these two witnesses. Once these two things, namely, the contents of the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. are not taken into consideration for the purposes of supporting any portion of the statements of these two witnesses, there remains nothing else in the prosecution evidence which could lend assurance to such portions of the statements made by these two witnesses which could go in favour of the prosecution case. As such it is not possible for us to place reliance on any portion of their testimony. 20. IN the result, we are of opinion that the evidence produced by the prosecution in the case is not such on the basis of which it can be said that it has succeeded in establishing its case beyond doubt and in connecting of the appellant with the murder of Smt. Bibbo. The prosecution in this case fails not because of any flaw in the investigation but because the persons who are said to have witnessed the incident have shown themselves to be persons devoid of all credit worthiness. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. He need no surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.