JUDGMENT : Nagendra Rai and N.K. Sinha, JJ. The appellant Udho Mahton along with four others was put on trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Banka, in S. T. No. 310 of 1986 who has convicted him u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The other four accused persons who were tried for the offence u/s 302/149 have been acquitted of the said charge. The appellant and four others were also charged for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. but they all were acquitted of said charge. 2. The prosecution version is that on 14.5.85 at 8. a.m. Babulal Roy (P. W. 6) and deceased Kapildeo Yadav both residents of village Barajogi police station Fulidumar, district Bhagalpur, had gone to Banka block office in connection with some work. While they were returning back to their house in the way they met accused Gajo Mahto, appellant Udho Mahton, Udheshwar Mahto and Butan Yadav of Sirade village at Samukhiya Hat. Thereafter they all proceeded towards their villages on cycles. In the way Udheshwar Yadav left for his village. Others reached at village Bajbaji at 4 p.m. and at the house of Ganauri Roy, deceased, Kapildeo Yadav, Butan Yadav, appellant Udho Mahton and Gajo Mahton took wine. After taking wine they all proceeded towards their houses in the evening. When they reached near the house of accused Gajo Mahton then he offered them to have a chicken party at his residence but Kapildeo Yadav, Babulal as well as Butan did not agree to the same and stated that they were vegetarians. While the aforesaid talk was going on the appellant Udho Mahton son of Gajo Maton proceeded towards his house and after some time came with a Bakarkatta (Hansia). Accused Saheb Mahto, Shaligram Mahto, Mahendra Mahto and others also reached there. Appellant Udho Mahton is alleged to have struck the Bakarkatta blow on the neck of Kapildeo Yadav as a result of which he cried and fell down. Thereafter the accused persons chased Babulal (P. W. 6) and Butan Yadav (P.W. 2) who after raising Hulla filed away from that place. Thereafter both of them went to the village of the deceased and narrated about the occurrence to Ganauri Mahton (P.W. 4) and others and then the villagers came to the place of occurrence but they did not find the dead body of the deceased there. Thereafter both of them went to the village of the deceased and narrated about the occurrence to Ganauri Mahton (P.W. 4) and others and then the villagers came to the place of occurrence but they did not find the dead body of the deceased there. Chappal of the deceased was lying there. Later on it transpired that the dead body of Kapildeo Yadav was taken to a nearby forest with a view to conceal the same. The motive for the occurrence according to the prosecution is the old enmity. 3. Bahulal Rai (P. W. 6) lodged the Furdbeyan (Ext. 2) before the A.S.I. Uday Bhanu Singh (P. W. 10) of Fulidumar police station on the same day at 11.30 p.m. on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Est. 1) Was drawn up against the accused persons for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 & 201 I.P.C. P.W. 10 visited the place of occurrence in the early morning of 15.5.85 which is at a distance of about 50 yards cast from the house of this appellant. The I.O. found copious blood at the place of occurrence as well as two Chappals belonging to the deceased. He searched for the dead body which was found in the hill which is at a distance of about 2 Kms. from the place of occurrence. He also found blood marks at several places between the place of occurrence and the place where the dead body was found. Seizure list with regard to the blood stained earth (Ext. 3) was prepared. He also held inquest over the dead body in presence of the witnesses. He examined the eye witness and thereafter submitted chargesheet. The accused persons the thereafter were put on trial which ended in the conviction of the appellant and acquittal of other accused as stated above. 4. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 5. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all in support of its case. Out of whom P.W.2 Butan Pd. Yadav is the only eye witness in this case. Other eye witness in this case' was the informant Babulal Rai (P.W. 6) but he has not supported the prosecution case 'and as such' he has been cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Md. Out of whom P.W.2 Butan Pd. Yadav is the only eye witness in this case. Other eye witness in this case' was the informant Babulal Rai (P.W. 6) but he has not supported the prosecution case 'and as such' he has been cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Md. Sakoor has proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). P.W.3 Ram Narayan Pd. Yadav has proved the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2). P.W.4 Ganauri Mahto, P.W.7 Kaushalya Devi, P.W.8 Harihar Yadav are the witnesses on the point that soon after the occurrence P.W.6 Babulal Rai informed them about the occurrence and has further stated that the• appellant had caused injury to the deceased. P.W.9. Rajendra Pd. Yadav has been tendered. P.W.10 Uday Bhanu Singh is the Investigating Officer who recorded the Fardbeyan and conducted the investigation in this case. P.W.5 is Sri Nath Rai, A.S.I. who has submitted the charge-sheet in this case. P.W. 11 Gauri Mohan Mishra is an Advocate's Clerk who has proved the postmortem report (Ext. 5). 6. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence in this case it is to be mentioned at the very outset that though according to the charge-sheet there were other eye witnesses also but only two of the eye witnesses have been examined in this case namely P.W.2 Butan Prasad. Yadav and P.W. Babulal Rai. After Butan Prasad (P. W. 2) was examined as an eye witness in this case he was murdered and according to the suggestions made to P.W.6 Bahulal Rai it appears that the brother of this appellant namely Shaligram Mahto was one of the assailants of P.W.2, Butan Prasad. Widow of the deceased has been examined as P.W.7 and she has stated that after Butan Yadav deposed in this case he was murdered and due to the fear of the accused persons other witnesses are not coming to depose in this case. The evidence of the only eye witness has to be considered in the back ground of the aforesaid circumstances. 7. P.W.2 is an inimical witness as in paragraph B of his deposition he has admitted that his father has filed a criminal case against Gajo Mahto father of this appellant and others prior to the occurrence. The evidence of the only eye witness has to be considered in the back ground of the aforesaid circumstances. 7. P.W.2 is an inimical witness as in paragraph B of his deposition he has admitted that his father has filed a criminal case against Gajo Mahto father of this appellant and others prior to the occurrence. However, on that ground alone his evidence cannot be brushed aside as it is well settled that the evidence of the enimical and interested witness cannot be rejected on that ground alone and the only requirement in law is to weigh his evidence with care and caution. This witness in his statement has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he met the deceased Kapildeo Yadav, P.W.6 Babulal Rai, appellant Udho Mahton and others at Samukhiya Hat at about 3 p.m. They left the Hat for their houses and in the way when they reached at the house of Ganauri Rai of village Bajbaji, there Gajo, appellant Udho, Ganauri and others took wine. He himself, the deceased and Babulal Rai (P. W. 6) did not take drink. They proceeded to their villages and when they came near the house of Gajo Mahto father of this appellant then Gajo Mahto asked them to attend a chicken party but this witness, deceased and others did not accept the party saying that they were vegetarians. In the meantime the appellant Udho Mahton came with a Hansia and hurled it on the neck of Kapildeo Yadav as a result of which his neck was cut and there was profuse bleeding at the place of occurrence. Appellant Udho Mahto and his companions chased him as well as Babulal Rai and they ded away. He has also stated that he went to the village and narrated about the occurrence to the others. When he and the other co-villagers came to the place of occurrence they did not find the dead body of Kapildeo Yadav. Though blood as well as Chappals of the deceased were found there. In the next morning in the nearby Hill the dead body was found. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant except pointing out the aforesaid enmity, has not brought to our not ice any thing to disbelieve the statement of this witness on the factum of occurrence. Though blood as well as Chappals of the deceased were found there. In the next morning in the nearby Hill the dead body was found. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant except pointing out the aforesaid enmity, has not brought to our not ice any thing to disbelieve the statement of this witness on the factum of occurrence. In our opinion this witness (P.W. 2) had not been shaken in the cross-examination on the point of occurrence. We have considered his evidence in detail and we do not find any reason to reject his evidence un the point of occurrence. 9. P.W.6 the informant, as stated above, appears to have gone back from his earlier statement made in the Fardbeyan due to fear of the accused persons. In the court he has stated that he has not lodged even the Fardbeyan which statement on the face of it is a false one for the reason that the P.W.10, A.S.I., has stated that it was P. W 6 who came to the police station and lodged the Fardbeyan. However, P. W 6 has not stated anything in the court against the appellant and as such his evidence is of no help to the prosecution. 10. P. W 4 Ganauri Mahto, P.W. 7 Kaushalya Devi widow of the deceased and P.W. 8 Harihar Yadav have stated that Babulal Rai came and informed them about the occurrence and disclosed the name of this appellant as the assailant of the deceased. However, their statements are of no value in the eye of law on the point of occurrence and as such they cannot he relied upon. 11. The evidence of the I.O. (P.W.10) fully supports the prosecution version inasmuch as he found blood at the place of occurrence. He also found the dead body in a nearby Jungle and trail of blood mar~ in between the two places. 12. The Doctor in this case is dead and the postmortem report has been proved by P.W. 11 an advocate's Clerk who has claimed that he was acquainted with the writing and signature of the concerned Doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the postmortem report is' not admissible in evidence as P.W.11 was not competent to prove the postmortem report. 13. Postmortem report is a report prepared by a Doctor with regard to the observations made by him while holding autopsy. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the postmortem report is' not admissible in evidence as P.W.11 was not competent to prove the postmortem report. 13. Postmortem report is a report prepared by a Doctor with regard to the observations made by him while holding autopsy. It is not necessary to hold the postmortem examination in every case. In this connection reference may be made to the relevant portion of section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows : 74. Police to enquire and report on Suicide. etc. (3) When - (i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or (ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within\even years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or' (iii) the case relates to the death of a' woman within seven years or her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or (iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or (v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with' a view to its being examined, to the nearest civil surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction In the road as would render such examination useless." From the perusal of the aforesaid provision it is dear that the postmortem examination is to be held only when there is a doubt -as to cause of death or when the case falls under any of the categories as mentioned therein or when the police officer considers it otherwise expedient to do so. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AI.R. 1988 SC 1983). Justice 'Oza in paragraph 42 of his judgment held that when there is a dear evidence about the cause of death the postmortem examination loses all its significance. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AI.R. 1988 SC 1983). Justice 'Oza in paragraph 42 of his judgment held that when there is a dear evidence about the cause of death the postmortem examination loses all its significance. It becomes important only in cases where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy. Justice K. Jagannath Shelly agreeing with the view of Justice Oza in paragraph 320 of the judgment held as follows : - "....It is not always necessary to have a complete postmortem in every case. Section 174 of the Code confers discretion to the Police Officer not to send the body for post-mortem examination if there is no as to the cause of death. If the cause of death is absolutely certain and beyond the pale of doubt or controversy, it is unnecessary to have the post-mortem done by Medical Officer. In the instant case, there was no controversy about the cause of death of Mrs. Gandhi. A complete post mortem of the body was therefore uncalled for." 14. The postmortem report by itself is not a substantive evidence. It is the evidence of, the Doctor in Court which is a substantive evidence. The postmortem report can be used only for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of the Doctor or for the purpose of contradiction or for the purpose of refreshing his memories under the provisions of the Evidence Act. There are only two circumstances in which the postmortem report can be used as a substantive evidence. Firstly when the case is covered by section 32(2) of the Evidence Act and secondly when the postmortem report is brought on the record in accordance with the provisions of section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. 15. Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides inter alia that the statement of relevant facts made by a person who' is dead or who cannot be found or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which would appear unreasonable to the court in a given case arc relevant facts if they relate to any of the matters referred to in the section. According to sub-section (2) the statement made in the ordinary course of business is a relevant fact. Statement and entries made in the "postmortem report are made by the Doctor in" ordinary course of business. If the Doctor is dead or otherwise not available for the reason mentioned above the postmortem report is admissible as substantive evidence. In this case the Doctor is dead. Postmortem report of the Doctor is admissible as substantive evidence in view of provision of section 32 sub-section (2) of the Evidence Act. Once this document is admissible as a substantive evidence then the writing and signature in the report can be proved by any of the modes as prescribed under the Evidence Act for proving the signature and handwriting of a person. In this case P.W.11 claims himself to be acquainted with the handwriting of the Doctor and he has proved the same and in our considered opinion he is a competent person to prove the writing and the signature of the Doctor who held the postmortem and the postmortem report cannot be rejected on the ground that it has not been proved by a medical expert. There is neither any rule of law nor binding precedent to hold that the postmortem report which is admissible in evidence under section 32(2) of the Evidence Act cannot be taken in evidence unless the writing and signature of the Doctor who prepared the postmortem report is proved by examining some other medical expert. Once the postmortem report is admissible as substantive evidence it can be proved by anyone who is acquainted with the writing of the Doctor. Thus the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the postmortem report is not admissible in evidence in our opinion is not worth acceptance. In our "opinion the medical report is admissible in evidence. From the perusal of the postmortem report it appears that the doctor had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased. The left side of neck was partially cut. On further dissection, the collar bone, 1st left rib also cutting through and through the great vessels of the neck. It was full of blood clots. Injury antemortem caused by a sharp weapon. The left side of neck was partially cut. On further dissection, the collar bone, 1st left rib also cutting through and through the great vessels of the neck. It was full of blood clots. Injury antemortem caused by a sharp weapon. The said injury according to the •Doctor was caused by a sharp cutting weapon which 15 (a) Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : "No formal proof of certain documents : (1) Where any document is filed before any court• by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed : Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. It is clear from the said provision that when a document is filed by the prosecution or the accused and its genuiness is not disputed by the other side then the document can be read in evidence in any enquiry or trial under the Code without the proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed. However, it is open for the court to require such signature to be proved. If the genuineness of the postmortem report is not challenged by the accused it can be read in evidence. This matter was considered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Saddiq and others v. State (1981 Cr.L.J. 379) wherein it was held that the postmortem report filed by the prosecution under section 204(1) of the Code if not challenged by the accused may be read as statement in evidence under section 294(3) of the Code. This question was also considered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. State of Maharashtra (1983 Cr. This question was also considered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. State of Maharashtra (1983 Cr. L. J. 487) wherein it was held that the postmortem report is not excluded by the purview of section 294 of the Code which dispenses with the proof of every documents genuineness of which is not challenged by the other side. If the postmortem report is admitted in evidence in accordance with section 294 of the Code then it can be read in evidence without the formal proof. 16. The other submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the prosecution has not examined all eye witnesses nor independent witnesses have been examined in this case. People in this part of the country are adopting indifferent attitude in coming before the court for giving evidence in a case. Here crime is committed from zero hours to 24 hours, from bedroom to the court. Weapons adopted for the crime are from bows and arrows to explosive substance. All methods arc used to eliminate or terrorise the witnesses from coming to court for giving evidence. Doctor and the I.O. have no time to depose in Sessions cases. In such prevailing situation independent witnesses are reluctant to come forward to depose in the case. In that view of the matter the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the ground that all eye witnesses have not been examined nor on the ground that independent witnesses have not been examined to support the prosecution case. If the evidence of the witnesses even if interested or inimical is reliable, clinching and convincing the conviction can be recorded on the basis of the same. The duty is cast on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This duty has to be discharged by the prosecution by adducing reliable and trustworthy evidence. This aspect of the matter was noticed by the Apex Court in the case State of U. P. Vs. Anil Singh (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1998) wherein it was held as follows: "We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. This aspect of the matter was noticed by the Apex Court in the case State of U. P. Vs. Anil Singh (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1998) wherein it was held as follows: "We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable" In this case the other witnesses have not turned up to depose because of danger to their life as, the eye witness Babulal Rai after being' examined as eye witness in this case was murdered. 17. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the evidence of the only eye witness does not inspire confidence and it would not be safe to rely upon his evidence to maintain conviction' in this case. In this connection he referred to certain minor contradiction in his evidence. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain the grain of untruths, exaggerations, falsehoods and embroideries but that cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of a witness. The evidence of such witness is to be scrutinized meticulously and the truth is to be separated from the falsehood. The Privy Council in the case of Bankim Chander v. Matagini 24 Ca1.WN 626 (A.I.R. 1919 PC 157) observed as follows: ".....that in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is on some occasions a tendency amongst litigants in India, as elsewhere, to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence." The Supreme court in the case of Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1965 SC 277) observed as follows : "The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments, It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest." In the aforesaid case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows : "It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." 18. We have considered the evidence of P.W.2 meticulously and in our opinion he is a truthful witness. He has admitted the institution of a case by his father against the accused persons. He has not suppressed any fact' on material points as such we do not find any reason to reject his evidence. His evidence is supported by the objective finding as well as the medical evidence as discussed above. We do not find any force in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.