JUDGMENT N. N. Singh, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 25.11.86, passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, by which appellants. Md. Alauddin and Md. Hashim, were convicted under Sections 302, 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Md. Alauddin was also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellants Md. Isheque and Md. Mustafa were convicted under Sections 302/149, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the first information report (Exhibit 2) lodged by PW. 3, Md. Gayasuddin, was that on 12-07-78, at about 08. OC A. M. When Shoaib Mian was coming after easing and his brother, Moinuddin (PW. 1), was going to case and they were on village public road, these appellants, who were variously armed, reached there and surrounded and asked them to relinquish possession over the land sold by Mustafa in favour of Shoaib Mian and the same land was subsequently sold to appellant Hashim and Alauddin regarding which a case was filed in regard and decree was passed in favour of Shoaib Mian. Further case of the prosecution is that there was an altercation between the parties and there after appellant Alauddin and Hashim assaulted Shoaib Mlan with blunt portion of 'farsa' and 'bhala' respectively resulting in death of Shoaib Mian and it was further alleged that the remaining three appellants assaulted Moinuddin with butt of country made revolver and lathis respectively causing injuries to him. The first information report was lodged by PW. The first information report was lodged by PW. 3 at 05.00 P.M. on 12.07.78 in Chautham Police Station on the basis of which Chautham P. S. Case No. 4, dated 12.07.78, was registered against the appellants and after due investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants and six other accused persons, who were acquitted by the trial court by the impugned judgment and these appellants were convicted as aforesaid. 3. The defence, as gathered from the suggestion put to P.Ws., the statements of these appellants under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appears to be that these appellants were falsely implicated in this case and that deceased, Shoaib, was murdered somewhere else in the night and his dead body was thrown and after deliberation these appellants were falsely implicated in this case due to enmity and litigation. 4. Six P.Ws. were examined by the prosecution in support of its case out of whom P.W. 3, Md. Gayasuddin, P.W. 2, Rajjak, and P.W. 1, Moinuddin, claimed to be eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 5, Md. Halimuddin, is a formal witness, who proved the sale deed of the land in dispute, which has been marked as Exhibit 3 P.W. 4, Damodar Prasad Singh, the investigating officer of this case and P.W. 6 is Dr. Gulab Jha, who proved injury report of Moinuddin examined by him as Exhibit 5 and he also proved the post mortem report of Dr. S.N. P.N. Singh as Exhibit 6, who was dead. 5. The defence had also examined two witnesses out of whom D.W. 1 is Md. Abdul Barkat, who was a charge-sheet witness and whom the prosecution did not examine, but he appeared as D.W. 1 stating that the dead body was found on the road at 05. 00 A.M. itself. D. W. 2 is Aziruddin, a formal witness, who proved mortgage deed Exhibit 'A' in respect of that land. 6. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence did take place at 08.00 A.M. on road where the appellants assaulted Shoaib (deceased) and his brother, Moinuddin, P.W. 1, as a result of which Shoaib succumbed to his injuries and Moinuddin received injuries on his person. 6. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence did take place at 08.00 A.M. on road where the appellants assaulted Shoaib (deceased) and his brother, Moinuddin, P.W. 1, as a result of which Shoaib succumbed to his injuries and Moinuddin received injuries on his person. P.W. 4, Damodar Prasad Singh, the investigating officer of this case, stated to have visited the place of occurrence on 13.07.78 as the first information report was lodged in the evening and due to flood situation he could not go to place of occurrence during night. P.W. 4 stated to have prepared the inquest report, Exhibit 3, of the dead body of Shoaib and also injury report of Moinuddin, whom he sent for examination. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 6, Dr. Gulab Jha, that Dr. S. N. P. N. Singh, who held post mortem examination on the dead body of Shoaib died in All India Institute of Medical Science at Delhi. He proved the post mortem examination report prepared by Dr. S. N. P. N. Singh, which has been marked as Exhibit 6. From the perusal of the post mortem report, Exhibit 6, it appears that following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Shoaib Sidique in the post mortem examination held on 13.07.78 at 05.45 P.M. “(i) Two incised wounds 1½" x ¼" bone deep on the left side of face. There was also fracture of mandible. "(ii) One penetrating wound on the right side of neck. "(iii) There was fracture and dislocation of 2nd and 3rd clavicle vertibra." In the post mortem report the time elapsed since death was about two days and though opinion of P.W.6, Dr. Galab Jha, was not taken by prosecution regarding injuries sustained by the deceased as to whether the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or not this much is mentioned in the report that the deceased succumbed to death due to shock and haemmorhage from above mentioned injuries. Thus, this much is established that Shoaib died a homicidal death. 7. P.W. 3, Md. Gayasuddin, the informant of this case, stated that he was at the shop of Latif Choudhary, which was at a distance of 5/6 'laggas' from the 'chaurasan' (chauraha). Thus, this much is established that Shoaib died a homicidal death. 7. P.W. 3, Md. Gayasuddin, the informant of this case, stated that he was at the shop of Latif Choudhary, which was at a distance of 5/6 'laggas' from the 'chaurasan' (chauraha). In the evidence it has come that there is a road running south to north and at a distance of 10 to 12 laggas' from village, another road turns towards west from that road and that place is called 'chaurasan' there. PW 3 further stated that Ali Hasan and Abul Barkat were also present there but Ali Hasan has not been examined and Abul Barkat has figured as DW 1. PW 3 stated that near chaurasta, Shoaib and Moid (PW 1) met and these appellants out of whom Alauddin was armed with farsa, Hashim was armed with bhala, Ishaqae was armed with country made pistol and Akhtar and Mustafa were, armed with lathis reached there and they had an altercation regarding land and that Alauddin assaulted Shoaib with farsa which hit him in the right side of face and that Shoaib fell down and then Hashim gave bhala blow in his wind pipe which pierced and came out from his mouth. PW 3 was very much specific in stating that no one else assaulted Shoaib. In view of the fact that besides the injuries on cheek and throat, other injuries were also found on the person of the deceased in post mortem report, Exhibit 6. Regarding injury on PW 1, he stated that Akhtar and Mustafa with lathi and Ishaque with butt of pistol assaulted him and nobody else assaulted PW 1. This is not inconformity with evidence of PW 6, Dr. Gulab Jha, who proved injury report, Exhibit 5, of PW 1 and stated to have found two incised injuries also on the person of PW 1. PW 1 also contradicted PW 3 by claiming that he was assaulted by Alaudnin with farsa also which fact was not stated by PW 3 either in his evidence or in his first information report (Exhibit 2). PW 1 also contradicted PW 3 by claiming that he was assaulted by Alaudnin with farsa also which fact was not stated by PW 3 either in his evidence or in his first information report (Exhibit 2). In the first information report (Exhibit 2) it is specially mentioned that Alauddin assaulted Shoaib with rear portion of farsa, causing injury in the right side of cheek, but in the post mortem report (Exhibit 6) proved by PW 6, it is mentioned that two incised injuries were found on the left side, face of the deceased which could not have been caused by rear portion of farsa. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there is an explanation in the evidence of PW 3, who asserted that the first information report was not read over to him and that PW 3 had filed a protest petition in the court below against the investigating officer. Even, if it is believed, thought it has not been brought on record that a protest petition was filed against the investigating officer, I find, from perusal of cross examination of this witness, PW 3, in paragraph 14, that this witness asserted to have made statement before the police that Alauddin assaulted Shoaib with rear portion of farsa and that he inflicted injury in the right side of face of Shoaib. Because of this assertion of PW 3 no benefit can accrue to prosecution by filing of protest petition against the investigating officer in order to meet the discrepancy in two versions, one in the first information report and the other in his evidence of PW 3, when PW 3 admits to have made the same statement before police which was regarding the first information report (Exhibit 2). We find that there is discrepancy regarding side of weapon allegedly used by Alauddin and also regarding seat of injury on the face of the deceased. It cannot be said that it was by mistake rear portion of farsa was mentioned as the weapon used and that actually the informant meant front portion of farsa. In the decision of the case of Hallu and others Vs. It cannot be said that it was by mistake rear portion of farsa was mentioned as the weapon used and that actually the informant meant front portion of farsa. In the decision of the case of Hallu and others Vs. The State of M.P., reported at AIR 1974 SC, 1938, it was held that normally when a witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing what the witness means is blunt side of the weapon was used. The same proposition of law can be used here also, that when in first information report it is mentioned that rear portion of farsa was used, there is no warrant for supposing that what the informant meant was that front portion of farsa was used. Moreover, in the instant case it was a duty of the prosecution to seek clarification from the informant and the witnesses regarding this discrepancy in two contradictory statements in first information report and in the evidence which has not been done. PW 4, the investigating officer, categorically stated in paragraph 14 of his cross examination that this witness, Gayasuddin (PW 3) had not made any statement to him and in view of this assertion, attention of PW 3 could not have been drawn towards any so called contradictory statement. 8. The legal position on the point of drawing attention of a witness towards contradictory statement is very clear but I must say that it is in most cases the attention of witness towards his contradictory statement before police is drawn in a wrong manner. In accordance with the principle laid down in favour Tahsildar Singh's case, reported at AIR 1959 SC 1012 , the attention can be drawn only after strict compliance of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The statement made before the investigating officer can be used for contradiction, but only after strict compliance of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure code absolutely bars the use of statement of witnesses made before police except for limited purpose of contradiction of prosecution witness. It is needless to point out that one statement contradicts other when both cannot co-exist together and contradiction should be between two statements, what the witness stated here, and what he stated before police. It is needless to point out that one statement contradicts other when both cannot co-exist together and contradiction should be between two statements, what the witness stated here, and what he stated before police. What the witness stated here has already been brought on record and he ace what contradictory statement he made before police should be brought on record. But the fact is that in most cases wrong procedure is adopted and, perhaps, it is thought that de fence is at liberty to draw attention of a witness in any way it likes. It must be made clear that the defence has no better claim to draw attention than what is available to prosecution when it declares a witness hostile and draws the attention of the witness towards his contradictory statement made before police. D.W. 2, Abul Birkat, was a charge-sheet witness and he was examined as a defence. His statement was recorded by police and as he has been examined as defence witness, his evidence cannot be corroborated by his former statement made before Police nor can be contradicted by the statement made before police. Thus, only those contradictory statements are to be considered regarding which attention of PW. towards his contradictory statement made before police was properly drawn. 9. PW 1 is Moinuddin, the brother of the deceased, Shoaib, he stated that Alauddin gave farsa blow on the face of Shoaib and when Shoaib fell down Hashim inflicted bhala injury in his throat and when he went to his rescue Alauddin gave farsa blow to him causing injury in his left hand and nose. He further stated that Ishaque, Akhtar and Mustafa assaulted him with lathis. PW 6 proved his injury report, which is Exhibit 5, in which it mentioned that the doctor found two incised injuries on dorsom illiac crest besides bruise scratch and defused swelling. In the first information report and in the evidence of PW 3 it is not mentioned that Alauddin gave any farsa blow to this witness. Regarding Ishaque assaulting this witness with lathi, the lower court has discussed this point in paragraph 21 of its judgment holding that Ishaque was not armed with lathi and country made pistol both. PW.1 named Ali Hasan Khurshid and Abul Barkat to be present there, but Ali Hasan and Khunhid have not been examined PW. Regarding Ishaque assaulting this witness with lathi, the lower court has discussed this point in paragraph 21 of its judgment holding that Ishaque was not armed with lathi and country made pistol both. PW.1 named Ali Hasan Khurshid and Abul Barkat to be present there, but Ali Hasan and Khunhid have not been examined PW. 2 is Rajjak, who stated to be returning from his field when he saw the occurrence at 08.00 A.M. In his cross examination his attention was drawn towards his contradictory statement made before police that appellant Allauddin was assaulted with bhala and that Hashim was armed with lathi to which this witness denied, but PW. 4 in paragraph 13 of his cross examination stated that this witness, Rajjak, has told him that Alauddin was having bhala and Hashim was having a lathi. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination PW. 2 admited that he had stated before police that Ishaque was having a country made gun. This contradictory statements, discussed above, go to give fatal blow to prosecution case as they show that developments were made in the prosecution case by P.Ws. 3, 1 and 2, who were the only witnesses on the point of occurrence. 10. PW. 4 stated to have visited the place of occurrence on the next morning and to have found the held body of Shoaib lying on a public road. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he admitted that no blood was found at the place where the dead body was found. Earlier in paragraph 5 of his evidence he stated to have found some blood like stain at a distance of 32 feet in east of the junction of the road from west of which another road originates which is called chaurasa. This supports the case of defence that the occurrence did take place somewhere else and at a different time and dead body of Shoaib was subsequently brought and thrown on road. The opinion regarding time of death in Exhibit 6 that time elapsed since death was about two days also goes to support the defence version as post mortem was held on 13.07.78 at 05.45 P.M. that is, about only 34 hours after the alleged occurrence. Exhibit 6 further shows that the body decomposed and in column 3 it was mentioned that decomposition bad started indicated that death took place earlier than what is claimed by the prosecution. Exhibit 6 further shows that the body decomposed and in column 3 it was mentioned that decomposition bad started indicated that death took place earlier than what is claimed by the prosecution. 11. Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, advocate for the appellants, in course of his argument put much stress on the point that there were so many independent, witnesses named in the charge-sheet but they were not examined and only interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution for which adverse inference may be drawn. He pointed out that PW. 1 was brother of the deceased and PW. 2 was 'sarhu' of the deceased. Shri Sinha further pointed out that in Exhibit 6 fracture of mandible was found regarding which no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to how that fracture was caused. He also pointed out that fracture and dislocation of second and third clavical vertebra was also found regarding which also the prosecution has not led any evidence as to how that fracture was caused specially when inflicting of injury on face and bhala injury on the chin could not have caused both the fractures. I find weight in his argument that it only indicated that death of Shoaib was caused in a different manner than what has been alleged by the prosecution. I have discussed that PW 3 stated that farsa was inflicted on the right side of the face but in Exhibit 6, the injury was found on the left side of the face. These discrepancy in prosecution evidence lead us to only one inference that the occurrence did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution failed to make out case against these appellants beyond doubt. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside. All the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds. N. Pandey, J. I agree. Appeal Allowed.