G. D. DUBE, J. The State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-11-1979 passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 302 and 324,1. P. C. 2. It was stated in the first information report lodged at 11. 10 a. m. on 12-1-1977 by Sajjad that Parvez had taken a shop situate in Machhli Bazar, Mohalla Sarai Gate, Police-station Kotwali City, Rampur, on a tenancy of Rs. 11 per month. He was running a cycle repairing business in the shop. Usman, brother of Sajjad, was asking parvez to vacate the shop since last several days. On the previous evening, Usman had against asked Parvez to vacate the shop. Parvez had informed that the will reply on the next day. It is alleged the about 10. 45 a. m. on 12-1-1977, Parvez came to the house of Usman. When Usman came down on the road, Nabi Ahmad and Hafiz Sajjed caught-hold of Usman and Parvez inflicted knife blows. He gave some knife blows to Sajjad also. Usman fell down. On the alarm of Sajjad, Yasin Khan, Abdul Ghaffar, Sattar Khan and several others arrived and saw this occurrence. The accused ran away towards Topkhana. Usman was seated on a rickshaw and Sajjad came to Police-station Kotwali and lodged the report. The case was registered originally under Sections 307 and 324, I. P. C. 3. After lodging of the report, the investigation was taken up by B. K. Misra. He went to the place of occurrence and inspected the site. Usman had been sent to the District Hospital, Rampur. He died in the hospital. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to the hospital and conducted the inquest proceedings. He sent the dead-body to the mortuary for post-mortem. The autopsy of the dead-body of Usman was conducted by Dr. R. K. Misra at 4-00 p. m. on 12-1-1977. The details of the injuries of Usman are noted in the judgment of the court below. Sajjad was also medically examined by Dr. R. N. Bhatnagar on the same day at 11-45 a. m. and was found to have received four incised wounds. The details of these injuries are noted in the judgment of the court below. 4. B. K. Misra, Investigating Officer, had taken Parvez from the Hawalat of the Kotwali to a Nala in Machhli Bazar. R. N. Bhatnagar on the same day at 11-45 a. m. and was found to have received four incised wounds. The details of these injuries are noted in the judgment of the court below. 4. B. K. Misra, Investigating Officer, had taken Parvez from the Hawalat of the Kotwali to a Nala in Machhli Bazar. Parvez had taken out knife (Ext. 1) from a Nala and handed it over to the Investigating Officer. This recovery was made in presence of Dharam Prakash Kalra (P. W. 5) and Jagdish. B. K. Misra had conducted his other usual investigation upto 20-1-1977. Thereafter, the remaining investigation was conducted by R. P. Singh (P. W. 5 ). 5. The respondent Parvez had admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he was tenant in the shop owned by Usman. He stated that Usman had asked him to vacate the shop, but he had refused to do so. According to him, Usman, Sajjad and two unknown persons came on the shop on 12-1- 1977 and started throwing out his belongings kept in the shop, When Parvez, objected, Usman gave a knife blow. Sajjad had a Danda in his hand. He wielded his Danda which hit his head. Parvez alleged that he had inflicted knife blows on Sajjad and Usman in his self defence. He stated that he went to the police-station to lodge a report, but was detained and arrested. He also alleged that he was medically examined. The other two respondents had denied their participation in the crime. 6. The respondents had examined Dr. G. K. Jain, Medical Officer of District Hospital, Rampur. He had examined Parvez at 12-30 p. m. on 12-1-1977. He had found one incised wound 3 cm. x i cm. x muscle on left thumb front side and another incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle on the left thumb outer aspect. He also complained of pain on right side back, but no mark of injury was seen. 7. The respondents had also examined Durge Prasad Mehrotra (D. W. 2), Bhargava Swarup, Munne Khan (D. W. 4) and Nirbhay Kumar (D. W. 5 ). They are witnesses regarding the alibi of the remaining two res pondents. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge had not considered the pleas of self-defence produced by the two respondents Nabi Ahmad and Hafiz Sajjad. The respondents had also examined Durge Prasad Mehrotra (D. W. 2), Bhargava Swarup, Munne Khan (D. W. 4) and Nirbhay Kumar (D. W. 5 ). They are witnesses regarding the alibi of the remaining two res pondents. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge had not considered the pleas of self-defence produced by the two respondents Nabi Ahmad and Hafiz Sajjad. He, however, accepted the pleas of self- defence of Parvez. The learned Sessions Judge doubted the prosecution story itself. He did not accept the place of occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He also did not accept the prosecution story regarding the manner of occurrence. 8. It has been argued by learned counsel for the State that the prosecu tion story as far as it relates to the causing of fatal injuries by Parvez is concerned, is admitted in the statement of Parvez under Section 313, Cr. P. C. in these circumstances, respondent Parvez could not have been acquitted. He was atleast guilty of exceeding his right of private defence. It was urged that the alleged injuries on the person of Parvez were superficial in nature. It was urged that Parvez was a left handed person and, therefore, the injuries on the left thumb could be caused while inflicting injuries on Sajjad and Usman from the knife held by Parvez in his left hand. It was also urged that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the statements of D. Ws. 2 to 5. If the statements of D. Ws. 2 to 5 were disbelieved, then it could lend support to the prosecution varsion about the presence of Nabi Ahmad and Hafiz Sajjad at the spot and their participation in the crime. 9. The learned counsel for defence contended that Sessions Judge has given adequate reason for not believing the prosecution story, therefore, even if this court comes to the conclusion that another view is possible the findings of the trial court should not be disturbed. 10. In the first information report it was stated that the occurrence took place in front of the house of Usman. Sajjad P. W. 1 stated in the first information report Hindi The above sentence in the first information report clearly indicate that as soon as Parvez arrivad in front of the house of Usman, the accused assaulted Sajjad and Usman with his knife. The site plan (Ext. Sajjad P. W. 1 stated in the first information report Hindi The above sentence in the first information report clearly indicate that as soon as Parvez arrivad in front of the house of Usman, the accused assaulted Sajjad and Usman with his knife. The site plan (Ext. ka 12) shows that the house of Usman faces east. This door has been shown by figure3 in the site plan. Hence according to the first information report the occurrence should have taken place at point 3. The prosecution witnesses have tried to change their stand in their statements. The witnesses saying that after Usman and Sajjad came down on the road they and Parvez proceeded towards shop talking together. Usman and Sajjad were attacked in front of the shop of Usman. This place has been shown by figure 4 in the site plain. The investigating officer has noted this distance between 4 and 3 as 40 steps. In this way the prosecution has tried to shift the place of occurrence during the trial. 11. It has come in the statement of Sajjad that Parvez was a tenant in the house for the last 4-5 years. The rent note was changed several times after expiry of every 11 months. It was, therefore, clear that Parvez was a settled tenant. He should not be evicted unless he vacate the shop in question either voluntarily or was vacated by the process of the court. It is not unusual that the process of the co urt may take long time to complete. In such a situation Usman would have been the aggrieved person. From the first inform ation report it transpires that Usman had not promised to vacate on the previous event when he was asked to vacate be Usman. Parvez had informed him next day as to what he would do. This itself indicates that Parvez had no intention to vacate the premises in question. This also shows that Usman could be the most aggrieved person in the matter. The conten tion of Parvez appears to be correct. It, is true that no evidence has been led on behalf of Parvez that Usman had actually tried to throw out the belongings of the Parvez from the shop and get it vacated forcibly. This also shows that Usman could be the most aggrieved person in the matter. The conten tion of Parvez appears to be correct. It, is true that no evidence has been led on behalf of Parvez that Usman had actually tried to throw out the belongings of the Parvez from the shop and get it vacated forcibly. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that the injury of the thumb of Parvez could be caused while inflicting injury on Usman and Sajjad is not born out from the site of the injury. The injury No. 2 on the left thumb was on the outer aspect. The injury No. 1 was also on the front side of the left thumb. These two injuries could not have been caused while holding a knife and inflicting injuries on another person D. W. 1 Dr. D. K. Jain has stated that this injury could be caused at the alleged date and time of occurrence. The prosecution has not come forward with an explanation of this injury on Parvez. 12. It is not probable that Parvez might have self-inflicted or got it inflicted during his arrest and at the time of occurrence. His injuries were examined at 12-30 p. m. i. e. just 1. 45 hours after the alleged occur rence. 13. The trial court has rightly stated that the version of the prosecution that Parvez was holding knife in the left hand has been deliberately intro duced during the trial to explain the injury of Parvez. The trial court has believed the statement of Manae Khan D. W. 4 that Parvez is a right handed person and does all his work with right hand. We do not find any reason to disagree with the lower court regarding the veracity of D. W. 4. The evidence led before the trial court clearly indicate that Parvez might have inflicted the injury on the person of Usman and Sajjad in self-defence of his property as well as his person. 14. Under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code the right of private defence or property against criminal trespass and mischief continue as long as the offender continues in the commission of the criminal trespass or mischief. The defence version as appears to be probable. 14. Under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code the right of private defence or property against criminal trespass and mischief continue as long as the offender continues in the commission of the criminal trespass or mischief. The defence version as appears to be probable. In the circumstances of the case if Parvez has inflicted some injury then he was entitled to protect himself and is permitted from agression. He does not appear to exceed his right of defence. 15. The prosecution has not come forward with any explanation of injury of Parvez. Consequently the three consequences as stated in famous caw State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, AIR 1975 SC 1442 follows. They are : (1) That the accused had inflicted the injury on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence, (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence very doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does affect the prosecution case at all. 16. In that case the first two will be attracted. The prosecution version is very doubtful. The accused appear to have been inflicted the injury on the deceased in the exercise of right of self defence. 17. There is another lacuna in the prosecutions fabric. The doctor conducting the post mortem was not examined. The postmortem report was admitted on the endorsement by the learned counsel for the defence that he had dispensed with the formal proof of the document. When the attention of the respondent was drawn to the above fact they pleaded ignorance. 18. As early as in 1979 a Division Bench of this Court stated in Jagdeo Singh v. State, 1979 Cr LJ 236 that post mortem report of the doctor is only his previous statement and cannot be proved by resorting to the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the statement of doctor which forms substantial evidence about the cause of death. 19. In 1983 Shaikh Farid Hussainsab v. State of Maharasthra, 1983 CR LJ 487 no doubt a Full Bench of Bombay High Court observed as under : "now the post-mortem report is also a document as any other document. Primary evidence of such a document is the report itself. 19. In 1983 Shaikh Farid Hussainsab v. State of Maharasthra, 1983 CR LJ 487 no doubt a Full Bench of Bombay High Court observed as under : "now the post-mortem report is also a document as any other document. Primary evidence of such a document is the report itself. It is a contemporaneous record, prepared in the prescribed form, of what the doctor has noticed in the course of post mortem of the deadbody, while investigating the cause of the death. It being relevant, it can be proved by producing the same. But production is only a step towards proof it. It can be received in evidence only on the establishment of its authenticity by the mode of its proof as provided under Section 67 to 71 of the Evidence Act. Section 294 (L) of the Code enables the accused also, to waive this mode of proof, by admitting it or raising no dispute as to its genuineness when called upon to do so under sub-section (1 ). Sub-section (3) enables the Court to read it in evidence without requiring the same to be proved in accord ance with the Evidence Act. There is nothing in Section 294 to justify exclusion of it, from the purview of "documents" covered thereby. The mode of proof of it also is liable to be waived as of any other document". "it was faintly suggested that (1) Section 294 of the Code aims at dispensing with proof only of such documents which require formal proof, (2) examination of the author of the documents is necessary to prove only certain documents and not every document, and (3) that relevancy of only certain documents depends on their genuineness. A few observations in Ganpat Raojis case (1980 Cri LJ 853 at p. 856 para 36) in paragraph 33 (page 64) were relied on in support of these contentions. We are not sure if the learned Judges could have intended to say so. We have, however, no hesitation in holding that the conten tions so raised are untenable. Section 294 of the Code dispenses with proof of every document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed. It does not contemplate existence of any class of documents as such, requiring formal proof. It is Section 293, however, which does deal with a certain category of documents which can be received in evidence without proof. Section 294 of the Code dispenses with proof of every document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed. It does not contemplate existence of any class of documents as such, requiring formal proof. It is Section 293, however, which does deal with a certain category of documents which can be received in evidence without proof. The language of the two sections is distinct enough to admit of any mistake. Secondly, every document is required to be proved by its author unless he cannot be made available for evidence due to unavoidable reasons. Thirdly, genuineness of any document is a condition precedent for its relevancy. It is difficult to conceive of any relevant document which can be relied on even if not genuine. " 20. In 1984 in Gofur Sheikh v. The State, 1984 Cri LJ 559 also it was held that postmortem report could not be used as a substantive evidence, with out the examination of the doctor. 21. In Ram Deo v. State of Bihar, 1988 Cri LJ 1431, a single Bench of Patna High Court had not accepted even an injury report where formal proof had been dispensed with. Except the above we have not come across any other case where the post mortem report of the doctor is read as a substantive evidence in absence of his evidence. In Bombays case the attention of the Bench was not drawn to Allahabads case. 22. We are of the opinion that in his oral testimony the doctor unfolds various factors which are not mentioned in the report. In his statement by seeing recovered weapon the doctor may say whether the injuries found on the deceased were probable by the said weapon. He unfolds various minute details of his examination which are left for statement at the trial. One of the details is the time and manner of the injuries. Hence we are inclined to follow Allahabads case. We are of the opinion that the trial court should desist from resorting to use of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the matter where the accused is charged of a homicide. 23. In the present case there are other infirmities. Hence we find it futile to summon the doctor. 24. For the reasons mentioned above the appeal has no force. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .