Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. As students of Ramdaspur had quarrelled with brother and nephew of Birendra Singh (PW 1) and had threatened them for assault, allegedly Birendra Singh in the company of Shibu Singh, (deceased), took Dilip Singh and Kishore Singh, the two boys, who were students of that school, to Keshopur Middle School, and after having dropped them there, when he was returning via village Ghurmuriya and had reached near a jackfruit tree, Bhudeo Singh having bomb, Ram Singh, Kishto Singh, Jagdish Singh, Jato Singh and Gopal Singh holding pistols and Shyam Sunder Singh, holding gun, emerged from a nearby place and intercepted them, pursuant to which Bhudeo Singh lobbed a bomb which hit Shibu Singh on back, who dropped on the ground on receipt of injuries sustained by him. Allegedly, Jadu Singh too hurled bomb on him, splinters of which caused injury on both legs, and only after villagers including Shankar Singh, Tetar Singh and Sunil Singh had raised alarm, and people of village Keshopur had reached the place of occurrence, that the appellants made good their escape. As Shibu Singh was in pool of blood and was rolling in pains, he was carried to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution case with these allegations was launched by the brother of the deceased who had accompanied him, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation. Police Officer took all necessary steps to ascertain bona fide of allegations, visited place of occurrence, sent the dead body of Shibu Singh to mortuary for most-mortem examination and also sent Birendra Singh for his clinical examination by the doctor, recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. 2. In the eventual trial that commenced. State had examined altogether nine witnesses and those examined by the State were injured, Sunil Singh and Shankar Singh, who had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing loud explosion of bomb. Police Officer and also other witnesses. 2. In the eventual trial that commenced. State had examined altogether nine witnesses and those examined by the State were injured, Sunil Singh and Shankar Singh, who had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing loud explosion of bomb. Police Officer and also other witnesses. Appellants while admitting the occurrence that took place on 24th May, 1984, disputed contention raised on behalf of the prosecution, taking recourse to police case bearing Jhajha P.S. case No. 60 of 1984 instituted by Jado Singh, one of the appellants, against Shankar Singh, Sunil Singh and others, for causing injury to Jagdish Singh, Sato Singh, Shyam Sunder Singh and others, and the appellants, as such, placing counter version of the incident on the record, had negatived allegations attributed to them, alleging inter alia that Shibu Singh while carrying a bomb on his back, sustained injuries by its explosion and that is also the statement of Jado Singh recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the same fashion, Bhudeo Singh, one of the appellants in his statement rendered under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while negativing accusations attributed to him, sought to highlight his false implication, he being a witness in murder case registered against Surendra Singh for killing of Bhim Singh, and similar reasonings were assigned in case of other appellants too, as that of Jaddu Singh for the injuries sustained by Shibhu Singh. 3. Lot of contentions were sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the findings recorded by the Court below. However, before we give our due consideration to them, which in our view, deserves consideration, we consider it proper and desirable to analyse also the evidences placed on the record on behalf of the State, with brevity, as these evidences have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. 4. However, before we give our due consideration to them, which in our view, deserves consideration, we consider it proper and desirable to analyse also the evidences placed on the record on behalf of the State, with brevity, as these evidences have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. 4. Reiterating his earliest version, which he rendered before the police to set the criminal law in motion, Birendra Singh (PW 1), who was maker of the fardbeyan, states about returning from middle school in the company of deceased Shibu Singh where he had been to drop two students of his family in the school, when near a Jackfruit tree, appellants having emerged from a nearby field, intercepted them, pursuant to which, Bhudeo Singh had lobbed a bomb which hit Shibu Singh on back who dropped on the ground on receipt of injuries. Reiterating his earliest version, the witness states that Jadu Singh too hurled a bomb on him, splinters of which had caused injury on both the legs and only after Shankar, Tetar and Sunil Singh had raised alarm loudly, that the appellants had made good their escape. Though Shibu Singh was carried to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. He got himself treated in Jhajha hospital where he remained confined for ten days. His fardbeyan was recorded by the police in presence of Dhruv Narain Singh and Tetar Singh. As for motive, the witness would state that as the appellants had committed theft of wheat of one Dinesh Singh, he got the wheat restored to Dinesh Singh from possession of the appellants, and for this animus, appellants variously armed with weapons, committed incident in which Shibu Singh lost his life. Shankar Singh (PW 3) states that while he was returning from Gidhaur, he heard explosion of bomb near village Sansarpur and when he rushed to village Ghurmuriya, he noticed 9-10 persons who were identified to be Bhudeo Singh, Jaddu Singh, Jagdish Singh, Shyam Sunder Singh, Gopal Singh, Jato Sing, Ram Singh and Kishto Singh, going towards Ramdaspur in haste. The witness stated to have noticed Shibu Singh dropped dead in the field and Birendra Singh too injured. He stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence along with Tetar Singh and Sunil Singh. The witness stated to have noticed Shibu Singh dropped dead in the field and Birendra Singh too injured. He stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence along with Tetar Singh and Sunil Singh. Attention of this witness had been drawn by the defence about not making parallel statement before the police with regard to Birendra Singh having sustained injuries by splinters of bomb in his leg, and likewise narrations made by the witness about complicity of Kisto Singh, too was challenged by the defence, there being no such narration made before the police. 5. Other witness examined by the State is Sunil Singh (PW 4) and this witness stated to have heard loud explosion of bomb while going to Gidhaur and on having rushed to the place of occurrence, noticing appellants holding fire arms and bomb. The witness states to have noticed Shibu Singh dropped injured and Birendra Singh too bearing injuries in his legs. As for the arms held by the appellants, the witness states that while Bhudeo Singh had a bomb with him, Jado Singh, Jagdish Singh and Shyam Sunder Singh held gun whereas Gopal Singh, Kishto Singh and Ram Singh held pistol with them, and all of them were running towards their houses. The witness stated about Shankar Singh and Tetar Singh too having gone to village Ghurmuria with him. 6. Laxman Das (PW 7), who happens to be Investigating Officer of the case, states to have visited Referal Hospital, Jhajha, on receipt of OD slip on 24th May, 1987 where fardbeyan of Birendra Singh (PW 1) was recorded by him in presence of Dhruv Narain Singh and Tetar Singh, and on strength of said fardbeyan. First Information Report was registered. The Police Officer states to have prepared injured report in respect of injuries noticed on the body of Birendra Singh and also Shibu Singh, who was till then alive. He prepared inquest report, sent the dead body to mortuary, visited place of occurrence, which was the field of Ram Khelawan Mistry and east to the said field, blood drops were there, and at a distance of 25 yards, in south- west direction, there was a jackfruit tree. The Police Officer states to have recorded statement of witnesses, apprehended some of the appellants and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. The Police Officer states to have recorded statement of witnesses, apprehended some of the appellants and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. The Investigating Officer had brought on the record post-mortem report, which was in the writing of Dr. Ramswaroop Singh. The fardbeyan of Jado Singh of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 60/ 1994 (Exhibit A). First Information Report (Exhibit C) and also charge sheet (Exhibit D) was also brought on the record by the witnesses on behest of defence. 7. Stale also examined other witnesses who, though did not claim to be ocular witness, had brought on the record, certain documents. Ram Bilas Sharma was PW 9, who brought on the record, entries Exhibit 6 in the outdoor register, which were in the pen of Dr. Suresh Prasad Barnwal of Referal Hospital. Jhajha, Carbon copy of the injury report (Exhibit 9) from the injury register was also placed on the record by the witness. The other witness, who was likewise formal in nature was Arjun Rajak (PW 8) who brought on the record sanction order which was in the writing of Ramdeo Rajak, and bears signature of then District Magistrate, ostensibly with an object of prosecution of the appellants under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Other witness, who too was formal was Shankar Ram (PW 2) who had brought on the record, fardbeyan of Birendra? Singh and also First Information Report drawn up on the basis of said fardbeyan by police. While Tetar Singh (PW 5) was tendered by the State, Dhruv Narain Singh (PW 6) stated to have appended his signature as a witness on fardbeyan of Birendra Singh in the Referal Hospital, Jhajha when Tetar Singh had also put his signature thereon. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 8. Foremost criticism that was sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was about failure of the State to conclusively establish death of the deceased by explosion of bomb. Contentions were raised that though post-mortem report of which Dr. Ram Swaroop Singh was said to be author, was placed on the record with the aid of evidence of the Police Officer, the said Police Officer, in view of his profession, was not expected to be skilled with expertise, in the medical jurisprudence. Contentions were raised that though post-mortem report of which Dr. Ram Swaroop Singh was said to be author, was placed on the record with the aid of evidence of the Police Officer, the said Police Officer, in view of his profession, was not expected to be skilled with expertise, in the medical jurisprudence. Though the Police Officer had not placed on the record, evidence about death of the doctor, PW 1, however, states about death of Ram Swaroop Singh. Now in the backdrop of the attending circumstances of the case, we may notice that though the post- mortem report was placed on the record, the person who claimed to have seen the injuries, was the only authority to say as to what he has soon and found. A reference can be had to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that the oral evidence must, in all cases be direct and it is the evidence of doctor on oath alone in Court which alone is substantive evidence. Needless to reiterate that either injury report or post-mortem report can be used only to corroborate or to contradict the doctor and it cannot be a substitute for his evidence. Though Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act provides exceptions to the general principle, but incidentally, the present case does not come within any of the clauses of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The principle about necessity of examination of the doctor has been reiterated by Court on a number of occasions and we may refer to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 387 , Hridyanand Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar. Though learned counsel for the State had brought to our notice a decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1988 SC 1883 . Kehar Singh V/s. State, Delhi Administration, but we find in the case citied at Bar, cause of death by gun shot injuries was not disputed and even though full postmortem report was not placed on the record, that was not considered to be any infirmity in the prosecution version. Kehar Singh V/s. State, Delhi Administration, but we find in the case citied at Bar, cause of death by gun shot injuries was not disputed and even though full postmortem report was not placed on the record, that was not considered to be any infirmity in the prosecution version. We may refer to another decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 185 , Munshi Prasad and others V/s. State of Bihar, in which observations were made by the Apex Court that post-mortem report, a document by itself was not a substantive evidence in absence of examination of the doctor. The conclusion which has been drawn in catena of decisions of this Court is that it was doctors statement in Court which had credibility of substantive evidence and not report which had to be made for refreshing the memory of its author. Though we find that death of Shibhu Singh cannot possibly be disputed in view of ocular evidence, there is no medico legal evidence that he died of the injuries which Bhudeo Singh was shown to have inflicted on him. 9. As for evidence about injuries sustained by Birendra Singh, one cannot fail to take notice that even in case of Birendra Singh, entries (Exhibit 6) recorded in the outdoor register of referal hospital, Jhajha in the pen of Dr. Suresh Prasad Barnwal was brought with the aid of Ram Bilash Sharma (PW 9), who was not skilled in the profession. That apart, the Court below itself had taken note of the injury report and also entries recorded by the Police Officer, in the police case diary. Apart from the fact that these documents were not of unimpeachable character on which reliance could have been placed, even the doctor, who was author of the injury report and was very much alive was not examined at trial, and in view of this infirmity that has crept in the prosecution version, no conclusion can be drawn about Birendra Singh having sustained injury from splinters of the bomb for which Jado and other appellants were shown to be answerable. 10. 10. Relying on fardbeyan of Jado Singh, in Jhajha P.S. Case No. 60 of 1984, it is urged with all stress that though some of the appellants had sustained injuries on their persons in the same transaction, which would be quite explicit from the counter version placed on the record, neither the injuries sustained by some of the appellants and others were explained by the prosecution, nor any circumstance of credible nature was shown, which can militate against the assertions made by the appellants in the counter version. We have noticed that from perusal of the Trial Court judgment, it would appear that when witnesses were confronted about the accused having sustained injury in the same transaction, as has been noticed earlier, none of the prosecution witnesses offered explanation for which the accused might have sustained injuries, and to crown all, the Investigating Officer stated that during investigation, he had found the appellants with injuries, admitted in the hospital. Courts have held the view that where accused persons had received injuries during same occurrence in which complainant was injured, and when they had taken plea that they had acted in their self-defence, that cannot be lightly ignored, particularly in the absence of any explanation of these injuries by the prosecution and on these premises, learned counsel would urge that even if right of private defence had not been taken by the appellants at the earliest, it was open for them to raise right of private defence at this stage too. Learned counsel in the alternative would urge that even if it is found that Shibu Singh and Birendra Singh sustained injuries on their persons in the same transaction at the hands of some of the appellants, they must be presumed to have acted in exercise of right of private defence and counter version of the appellants too would manifestly show that some of the members of the prosecution party including Sunil Singh, Tehar Singh and Shankar Singh had held arms with them obviously for infliction of injuries on the appellants. 11. 11. For the view which we have taken and decisions of the Apex Court that have been referred, reference can be had to the case reported in 1986 East Cr C 700 : 1986 PLJR 604 , Shiv Balak Rai and others V/s. State of Bihar, in which it was held that where author of injury or the post-mortem report had not been examined, there was no corroboration of oral evidence about injuries sustained by the injured or the deceased. It seems that the Court below without appreciating the counter version that was sought to be placed on the record on behalf of the appellants, held the view that even considering counter version, presence of Sunil Singh at the place of occurrence was not disputed. The fardbeyan of Birendra Singh was recorded at 10.10 a.m. on 24th May, 1984 for an incident took place on 24th May, 1984 itself. True it is that the fardbeyan of Jadu Singh in the counter version was recorded at 11 hrs. on 25th May, 1984, about an hour later, to the fardbeyan of Birendra Singh in Jhajha P.S. case No. 59 of 1984, but some narrations made by the Investigating Officer cannot be lost sight of, as he states in most explicit terms that the police case diary of Jhajha P.S. case No. 59 of 1984 was written at 10.30 a.m. on 24th May, 1984. about Jaddo, Satto Singh and Jagdish Singh having been hospitalised and in this view of the matter, no delay can be attributed to the appellants for delayed recording of fardbeyan of appellant Jadu Singh. 12. As for complicity of the appellants and also arms held by them, on this count too, the prosecution version was not consistent. Even in the First Information Report, complicity of Sato Singh and Ashok Singh was never suggested. Even at trial, Birendra Singh had totally ruled out presence of Sato Singh who was eventually acquitted by the Trial Court. Taking the evidence of Shankar Singh (PW 3), not only that he did not name Ashok Singh and Sato Singh, he did not also state a word even about arms held by any of the appellants, though the witness states to have seen Birendra Singh injured. It was quite unlikely that he would not ask him about the reasons for injury, sustained by him. It was quite unlikely that he would not ask him about the reasons for injury, sustained by him. Attention of this witness had been drawn by the defence about he having not made parallel statement before the police about Birendra Singh sustaining injury from the splinters of the bomb in his leg. Similar was the case with Sunil Singh (PW 4) whose attention too was drawn by the defence about he having not made parallel statement before the police about Jadu Singh having carried a bag containing bomb and there being complicity of Shyam Sunder Singh holding gun and Kishto and Gopal Singh holding pistol with them, though we find that Police Officer was not confronted with these contradictions. Birendra Singh (PW 1) would admit that Sunil Singh. Tetar Singh and Shankar Singh came from the same stock of the family, who were projected as witnesses of the incident Village Ghurmuria, Ramdaspur and Sansarpur were contiguous villages, but barring these three witnesses, none had come from the adjoining villages to say about the incident. As has been the evidence of PW 4, house of Sahdeo Mistri, Veg Mistry. Narayan Mistry an Ram Khelawan Mistri situate in the close vicinity but none of them were witnesses of the incident. Keshopur Middle School too situates there and village Sansarpur was also in the adjoining area. There had been a hotel too but no person from these villages or premises were witnesses of the incident. Had there been loud explosion of bomb, witnesses even from neighbouring area were expected to have flocked to the place of occurrence to say about the incident. 13 As for the motive behind the alleged killing of Shibu Singh, and injuries sustained by Birendra Singh though the prosecution version was, that as students of Ramdaspur had quarrelled with brother and nephew of Birendra Singh and they had threatened to assault him, the prosecution was also guilty of substituting motive at trial, as motive which was sought to be highlighted at trial was that the accused persons had committed theft of wheat of one Dinesh Singh, which was restored to him by deceased Shibu Singh and it was in the backdrop of this animosity, that the appellants had reacted and translated their design into action. True it is that motive in all cases does not assume significance, however, once motive was sought to be established, it must be by cogent and clinching evidence and on this score too we find that the witnesses were making vacillating statements even about motive. 14. Having given our anxious and deepest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also evidences placed on the record, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Court below cannot be sustained and consequently they are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Both these appeals accordingly succeed. Appellants are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA, J. 15 I agree.