J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment we are constrained to observe here that even though there was no contradiction with regard to Police statement so far as witness Naginbhai Punambhai is concerned a contradiction was brought on record that this witness did not state before the Police that Jitsinh fired and damage was caused to wallclock and injury was caused to his father. Witness admitted in his statement that he had not made such statement before the Police Officer but even then the question was again asked to the Investigation Officer who also stated that the witness had not made such a statement before him. When the witness admitted that he had not made a particular statement before the Police Officer it was not necessary to put to the Investigating Officer any question in that regard Even then such a question was put to the Police Officer also and therefore it raised doubt in our mind as to whether witness had in fact made such a statement before Police Officer or not. In view of this we looked in to the copy of the Police statement of this witness and found that contradiction was wrongly recorded in the evidence of the witness Naginbhai and also in the evidence of Police Officer. We therefore even called for original statement of the witness recorded by the Police Officer and found that original statement also disclosed that the contradiction was wrongly recorded. It appears to us that want of proper care and vigilance on the part of the learned Advocate for the accused the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned trial Judge resulted in bringing on record omission in the Police statement when there was none The Investigating Officer also appears to have given his evidence regarding the omission without having a look at the statement of the witness presumably because he must have taken it for granted that such an omission must be there when the concerned witness admitted the same. We would like to impress upon all concerned that when such a question with regard to statement of a witness recorded by a Police Officer or any other officer is put to a witness the original statement of the witness should be looked into with a view to see whether there is any contradiction or omission and only then such question should be permitted to be put. The Advocate putting such a question should be careful enough to see that he does not put such a question when such a question is not borne out by the record. The Public Prosecutor should also be vigilant and Presiding Officer of the Court should also be equally vigilant to see that such a question is not permitted to be put unless borne out from the record. The Investigating Officer should also be careful enough to look into original statement before giving reply to the questions in this regard. Unless all concerned show proper vigilance in this regard a wrong admission of a witness may be recorded with regard to contradiction or omission which may tilt the balance in a given case. We hope all concerned will be vigilant while such questions are put to a witness with reference to his statement for bringing on record a contradiction or an omission. Appeal partly allowed. .