JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - One of the accused in S.T. Case No. 96 of 1998 of the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur charged u/s 302, I.P.C. is the appellant. 2. The essential facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The informant (P.W. 1) Pabitra Mohan Swain lodged a report at Ersama P.S. on 19.10.1997 at 2 P.M. by describing that the appellant Natabar Aunria disclosed before him and others that deceased Gangadhar died due to bite of a mad dog. The informant somehow suspected the version of the appellant and he was under the impression that there was some foul play by the appellant. Therefore, P.W. 1 went to the house of Natabar and again asked him as to the cause of death of his son. The appellant was said to have made an extra judicial confession before him as well, as the other villagers and in presence of Gramarakhi that he along with his wife assaulted their son Gangadhar who used to pick up frequent quarrels with them. P.W. 1 also noticed some cut injury on the person of Gangadhar who was then laid down on a cot. Since a strong suspicion arose in the mind of P.W. 1 and other co-villagers, he lodged a report at Ersama P.S. which was registered as F.I.R. and the matter was investigated. Subsequently, the C.I. of Police, Tirtol, took over the charge of investigation. He visited the spot, examined the witnesses and seized one spade (M.O. I). He also held inquest over the dead-body of Gangadhar and despatched it for the purpose of post-mortem examination to the Headquarters Hospital, Tirtol. He also sent the cloth belonging to the deceased, spade and Bahungi for the purpose of chemical analysis and on completion of investigation he placed charge-sheet against the appellant and his wife. 3. The defence plea in the trial Court was one of complete denial of occurrence and the appellant claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. The trial Court on considering the evidence of the prosecution was, however, inclined to acquit the appellant's wife, but convicted him u/s 302, I.P.C. 4. Ten witnesses have been examined in this case in order to fasten the charge against the appellant. There has been no eye witness examined by the prosecution to sustain a conviction against the appellant. The trial Court on considering the evidence of the prosecution was, however, inclined to acquit the appellant's wife, but convicted him u/s 302, I.P.C. 4. Ten witnesses have been examined in this case in order to fasten the charge against the appellant. There has been no eye witness examined by the prosecution to sustain a conviction against the appellant. Only a minor daughter of the appellant who was examined as P.W. 8 did not also support the prosecution case. Even the informant turned hostile, besides the official witnesses, the doctor who had examined the dead-body of Gangadhar found that the deceased met a homicidal death on account of injury on his person. The learned trial Court relied upon a judgment in Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, and in Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has highlighted that on a plain reading of both the judgments it is emerged that it would not support the prosecution in any manner rather supports the defence plea. But, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has misread the judgment and held the appellant guilty of having committed the offence. There can be no controversy about the legal position that even the testimony of a hostile witness does not completely efface to the ground and such evidence is admissible in the trial and there can be no legal bar to base a conviction upon the testimony if corroborated by any other reliable witness. In this connection, our attention has been brought to the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 8. On a brief resume of their evidence nowhere we could gather that they deposed anything which can implicate the appellant in the crime. Even the alleged extra judicial confession made to P.W. 1 did not also receive any corroboration from other witnesses. P.W. 1 also did not support the prosecution case. It is the settled position of law that the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation u/s 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence save and except that can be used for the purpose of omission or contradiction. In this case, it is true that the deceased Gangadhar met a homicidal death which is evident from the testimony of P.W. 9 who had conducted the post-mortem examination. In this case, it is true that the deceased Gangadhar met a homicidal death which is evident from the testimony of P.W. 9 who had conducted the post-mortem examination. Since the prosecution has failed to produce any further material to connect the appellant with the crime, we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. P.K. Misra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed