P. K. BHASIN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Raghunath @ Raghu has challenged his conviction under Section 302 ipc for the murder of his wife and son on 10. 05. 1996 vide judgment dated 22. 11. 1999 passed by learned Additional sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case no. 217/97 in respect of FIR No. 207/96, police Station Model Town as also the order dated 27. 11. 1999 whereby he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the appellant was living along with his wife and son in jhuggi No. N-10/b-60, Bara Bagh, g. T. K. Road near Azadpur, Delhi. On the intervening night of 9/10. 5. 1996 at about 1:00 am, PW-1 Ramdev, who was living in the neigbourhood of the appellant, on hearing cries of 'bachao-bachao', woke up and came out of his jhuggi and found that the cries were coming from the jhuggi of the appellant. He reached there and saw that other neighbours had also reached that place. His wife Kalawati and his son lokesh were lying in the jhuggi in badly injured condition. At that time Kalawati was crying that her husband had stabbed her and her young child and that she should be saved and immediately taken to hospital. PW-1 Ramdev and other neighbours of the appellant caught hold of the appellant. In the meantime, one police vehicle which was passing through that area was stopped and in that vehicle the two injured along with the appellant as well as Ramdev were taken to hospital where the child was declared as brought dead. As per the further prosecution case, the appellant's wife also succumbed to her injuries around 5:00 am. The aforesaid facts were narrated by Ramdev in his first information statement made to the police (Ex. PW-1/a ). In that statement he had also claimed that the appellant quite frequently used to beat his wife and he was also suspecting her fidelity. When the police brought the appellant back to his jhuggi from the hospital after sometime, he, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement and pursuant thereto he got one blood stained knife (Ex. P-1) recovered from inside his jhuggi which was lying underneath the clothes. When the police brought the appellant back to his jhuggi from the hospital after sometime, he, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement and pursuant thereto he got one blood stained knife (Ex. P-1) recovered from inside his jhuggi which was lying underneath the clothes. The clothes which the appellant was wearing at that time had blood stains on them. During the investigation, those clothes of the appellant as well as the knife got recovered by him were sent for chemical analysis to Forensic science Laboratory (FSL), Malviya Nagar, new Delhi. The clothes of the two deceased preserved at the time of post-mortem examination were also sent there. On examination thereof the analyst found human blood on the clothes of the appellant as well as on the knife Ex. P-1. Blood of 'a' group was found on the frock of the deceased child as well as on the blouse, petticoat and saree of the deceased Kalawati. ( 3 ) ON completion of the usual investigation, the police charge sheeted the appellant and in due course he came to be tried by the sessions Court for the offences under section 302 IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution had sought to establish its case by examining 16 witnesses in all. The appellant after recording of the prosecution evidence was put all the incriminating circumstances which the prosecution had brought on record through its witnesses. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was innocent. He took a plea of alibi and claimed that on the night of occurrence he had gone to perform his duty as a cook in a marriage function near Rachna Cinema from where he came back to his jhuggi at 6 am when he found the police present there and he then was taken to the police station where his signatures were obtained on some blank papers. He pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was produced by the appellant in defence to establish the plea of alibi. ( 4 ) THE learned trial court relied upon the circumstance of the appellant having been apprehended from outside his jhuggi, his name having been mentioned as the assailant at the earliest opportunity in DD no. He pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was produced by the appellant in defence to establish the plea of alibi. ( 4 ) THE learned trial court relied upon the circumstance of the appellant having been apprehended from outside his jhuggi, his name having been mentioned as the assailant at the earliest opportunity in DD no. 21-A, presence of blood on his clothes, the declaration being made by his wife kalawati at the time of incident that she and her son had been stabbed by the appellant and false plea of alibi taken by the appellant while holding the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted him for the offence of murder. However, the recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant was not believed and consequently he was acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms act. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction of the learned trial court the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Sate have taken us through the relevant prosecution evidence and have also advanced arguments in support and against that evidence. PW-1 Ramdev is the author of the FIR. He has deposed that in the year 1996 on the 10th day of the month which he did not remember, while he was sleeping in his jhuggi he heard the cries of 'bachao bachao' from the jhuggi of Raghunth at about 1:00 am. On hearing those cries he came out of his jhuggi and saw that raghunath had been apprehended by several persons and at that time Kalawati, the wife of the appellant, was lying injured in her jhuggi. Her eight months old son was also lying injured. He ran to inform the police and on the way he came across one pcr Van near Vijay Cinema and then police came with him to the spot and they took the accused, his wife and the child to Hindu rao Hospital. Since this witness had deviated from his police version on some aspects he was permitted to be cross-examined by the additional Public Prosecutor. In that cross-examination pw-1 admitted that Kalawati was crying that her husband Raghunath had stabbed her and her child. He also admitted that Balmiki (PW-2) and Shamshool jama (PW-5) were also present there. Since this witness had deviated from his police version on some aspects he was permitted to be cross-examined by the additional Public Prosecutor. In that cross-examination pw-1 admitted that Kalawati was crying that her husband Raghunath had stabbed her and her child. He also admitted that Balmiki (PW-2) and Shamshool jama (PW-5) were also present there. He further stated that when they went to the police station in the morning the accused was being interrogated but he did not make any disclosure and then the police took the accused somewhere while they kept on sitting at the police station and after some time the police returned with the accused and a knife. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the accused had made a disclosure statement in his presence and that he had got recovered the knife in his presence. He, however, admitted that memos Ex. PW 1/b, pw 1/c and the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 1/d had his thumb impression. In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant/accused PW-1 was asked as to what Kalawati was saying when the PCR officials had come and his answer was that kalawati had said in the presence of PCR officials that her husband. had killed her and her son. He denied the suggestion that at that time Kalawati was lying unconscious. A suggestion was put to this witness that he had falsely deposed against the accused with the help of Balmiki (PW-2) and shamshool Jama (PW-5) because accused raghunath had relations with his (PW-1's)wife. This witness refuted this suggestion. When asked as to what he had informed the PCR officials regarding the incident, this witness replied that when the PCR officers had asked them as to who had killed the deceased then all of them had replied that raghunath had killed the deceased. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, this witness, however, claimed that the knife was produced by Raghunath. He also stated that he was the first person to apprehend Raghunath. He denied the suggestion that Kalawati was not in a position to speak and she did not utter anything. In the concluding portion of his cross-examination it was asked from him as to when the accused had got recovered the knife and his reply was that when he had returned with the police to the spot at that time the accused had taken out the knife. In the concluding portion of his cross-examination it was asked from him as to when the accused had got recovered the knife and his reply was that when he had returned with the police to the spot at that time the accused had taken out the knife. ( 6 ) THE next witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-2 Balmiki who was also residing in Bara Bagh at G. T. Karnal Road. He was examined on 28. 01. 1998. He has deposed that more than one year ago one day he had returned to his jhuggi at about 2 a. m. and then he had gone to sleep and after about half an hour he heard some noise. He came out of the jhuggi and saw accused Raghunath had been surrounded by several persons of the locality and at that time Ramdev (PW-1) was also there who called the police. At that time people were saying that Raghunath had killed his wife. This witness was also cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In that cross-examination, he admitted that the incident had taken place on 10. 05. 1996. He, however, denied the suggestion of the Public prosecutor that while he was sleeping in his jhuggi he had heard the cries of a woman around 1:00 a. m. and when he came out of his jhuggi he found that the screams of the woman were coming from the jhuggi of raghunath. He also denied that he had heard the wife of Raghunath saying that her husband had killed her son and had also injured her. This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the accused. ( 7 ) PW-5 Shamshool Jama is another neighbour of the appellant. He has deposed that on 10. 05. 1996 around 1:30 am when he was sleeping in his jhuggi he heard the cries of a woman 'bachao bachao'. When he came out of the jhuggi, he saw Ramdev (PW-1) holding accused Raghunath and at that time the wife of Rahgunath was inside the jhuggi and was crying and she was saying that her husband Raghunath had caused injuries to her with knife. At that time Kalawati and her son were both lying injured. The clothes of accused Raghunath were soaked in blood. Ramdev rang up police Control Room and the police took the wife and son of Raghunath to the hospital. At that time Kalawati and her son were both lying injured. The clothes of accused Raghunath were soaked in blood. Ramdev rang up police Control Room and the police took the wife and son of Raghunath to the hospital. Raghunath was also taken to the hospital by the police and thereafter, the pcr van returned to the spot with the accused. Local police had als,o reached there and arrested the accused who then produced a blood stained knife (Ex. P-1)which was lying under the clothes in the jhuggi and that knife was seized by the police as also the clothes and the same were sealed. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, this witness claimed that Ramdev was the first person to apprehend the accused although all of them had reached the spot simultaneously. He also claimed that Raghunath was apprehended from inside his jhuggi and ramdev had brought him out and then all caught hold of him. In cross-examination, this witness clarified that Ramdev had not telephoned the police but he had brought the PCR Van. He denied the suggestions that he was not present at the spot or that the accused neither made any statement nor produced any knife as claimed by him. He also denied the suggestion that Kalawati had not said anything. ( 8 ) THE next witness referred to during the course of arguments was PW- 10 H. C. Tulsi ram. He had deposed that on the night intervening 9/10. 5. 1996, he was on duty at PCR Van. At about 1:30 am, three persons signalled the van to stop near Bara bagh Mandir and on inquiry they told him that a person Raghunath had killed his family. These persons then took him to jhuggi no. B-26, Bara Bagh where many persons had gathered and had apprehended accused Rahgunath. Kalawati and her eight months old boy was lying in the jhuggi in injured condition and that the woman and the child along with accused Raghunath were taken in PCR Van to Hindu Rao Hospital where the child was declared dead by the doctor while the injured lady was admitted. After admission of the injured in the hospital, accused Raghunath was brought back to the spot in the van where Additional SHO, asi Ramanand and other police staff were present. Accused was handed over to them. After admission of the injured in the hospital, accused Raghunath was brought back to the spot in the van where Additional SHO, asi Ramanand and other police staff were present. Accused was handed over to them. When a leading question was allowed by the court to be put to this witness by the public Prosecutor, this witness clarified that the person who had signalled the PCR Van to stop was Ramdev and also that the number of jhuggi where he was taken by ramdev was M-10/b-60. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW-10 stated that when the accused was apprehended, he had no injury on his person. When asked from him whether he had informed the doctor in the hospital that the public had told him that Raghunath was the assailant, this witness replied that he had told so to the doctor. He denied the suggestion that he was not aware of the name of the assailant or that he had not mentioned his name to the doctor. ( 9 ) PW-11 ASI Ramanand is the police official who had reached the Hindu Rao hospital on getting the information about the injured having been brought there. He has deposed that in the hospital no eye-witness could be found and then along with the Additional SHO he came to the spot where H. C. Tulsi Ram (PW - 10) also reached along with the accused Raghunath and PW-10 handed over the accused to the additional SHO. Ramdev (PW-1) met them at the spot and the Additional SHO recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/a. This witness further deposed that the accused was interrogated at the spot and pursuant to his disclosure he had led the police inside his jhuggi and produced the blood stained knife ex. P-1 lying under the clothes. He also deposed about the seizure of clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at that time. He denied the suggestion that accused had not produced any knife. ( 10 ) APART from this oral evidence produced by the prosecution, documentary evidence in the form of report of FSL was also referred to by the learned Additional Public prosecutor while supporting the judgment of the trial court. He denied the suggestion that accused had not produced any knife. ( 10 ) APART from this oral evidence produced by the prosecution, documentary evidence in the form of report of FSL was also referred to by the learned Additional Public prosecutor while supporting the judgment of the trial court. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, at the outset, stated that he was not disputing the fact that the wife and the infant son of the appellant had died a homicidal death. This fact even otherwise gets fully established by the postmortem report Ex. PW 6/a which is in respect of master Lokesh, son of the appellant, and Ex. PW 6/b which is in respect of Smt. Kalawati, wife of the appellant. As per these postmortem reports, cause of death of both the deceased was stab injuries noticed on the dead bodies at the time of postmortem examination and which were found to be antemortem, recent in duration and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that there being no eye-witness of the murder and the fact that witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish certain circumstances incriminating the appellant have not fully supported the prosecution case and had to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and that there were many inter se contradictions and inconsistencies, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt and there was no justification for the conviction of the appellant on the basis of unreliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. It has also been contended that the learned trial court has itself in the judgment under challenge observed that the investigating agency had created evidence to show that the weapon of offence had been got recovered by the appellant from his jhuggi pursuant to his disclosure statement while in fact the prosecution case in the FIR was that the knife was with the appellant. Relying upon these observations of the learned trial court counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful because if the investigating agency can manipulate certain facts then there can be no guarantee about the truthfulness of the other evidence relied upon by the learned trial court while holding the appellant guilty. ( 13 ) LEARNED Addl. ( 13 ) LEARNED Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty on the basis of certain circumstances which the prosecution was able to establish through reliable evidence and further that the evidence of recovery of the weapon of offence has been wrongly disbelieved by the trial court. ( 14 ) WE have already narrated the material portions of the main prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Ramdev, PW-2 Balmiki and pw-5 Shamshool Jama. PW-1 Ramdev has deposed that when he had come out of his jhuggi on hearing the cries "bachao bacho" appellant's wife Kalawati was saying that her husband Raghunath had stabbed her and her child. . Even in cross-examination on behalf of the accused PW-1 claimed that kalawati was saying that her husband had killed her and her son. PW-5 Shamshool jama had also claimed in his evidence that when he had come out of his jhuggi on hearing the cries of a woman he had found kalawati and her son lying injured and kalawati was saying that her husband raghunath had caused injuries with a knife. It would thus be seen that both these witnesses, who are independent witnesses and neighbours of the appellant, corroborate each others version that the deceased Kalawati was claiming that she and her son had been stabbed by the appellant. Although it was suggested to PW-1 in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that he was deposing falsely with the help of PW-2 and PW-5 since Raghunath had extra marital relationship with his (PW-1's)wife but this motive being attributed to the witness has not even been said to be probablized what to say of establishing it by adducing necessary evidence. So, merely on the basis of mere suggestion put to PW-1 that he had deposed falsely against the appellant because the appellant had an affair with his wife, his evidence cannot be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-1 had to be cross-examined by the Pubic Prosecutor and for that reason his testimony becomes highly doubtful and he cannot be said to be a reliable witness. However, we do not find any force in this submission. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-1 had to be cross-examined by the Pubic Prosecutor and for that reason his testimony becomes highly doubtful and he cannot be said to be a reliable witness. However, we do not find any force in this submission. There is no doubt that PW-1 Ramdev was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and it was in that cross-examination only that he claimed that Kalawati was crying that her husband had stabbed her and her child but that statement cannot be discarded because it was made when the witness was cross-examined by the Prosecutor. It is not well settled that whatever statement a witness makes In cross-examination by the prosecutor that is also substantive evidence and can be relied upon by the Court if found to be trustworthy. That part of the statement of these kind of witnesses can certainly be relied upon which inspires confidence and receives corroboration from other evidence. In this case, the evidence of PW-1 gets full corroboration from the testimony of PW-5 Shamshool Jama. Both these witnesses could not be discredited in their cross-examination. No contradictions or omissions could be elicited from them with reference to their police version. And that shows that they had stuck to their version which they had given during the investigation before the police. ( 15 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW- 1 has claimed in cross-examination that the PCR officers had been informed by all of them that Raghunath had stabbed his wife and son but the PCR official PW - 10 HC Tulsi ram does not claim that he had been informed by anyone that it was the appellant who had stabbed his wife and son and this fact also makes the evidence of PW-1 doubtful. This submission appears to have been made by the counsel without going through the entire statement of this witness. In his cross-examination PW-10 stated in answer to a question that he had informed the doctor in the hospital that the public had told him that Raghu was the assailant. This witness thus definitely claims that he had been informed at the spot that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to his wife and son. The prosecution has also proved on record Dp entry No. 21a (Ex. This witness thus definitely claims that he had been informed at the spot that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to his wife and son. The prosecution has also proved on record Dp entry No. 21a (Ex. PW- 11/a) recorded at Model Town police station at about 2. 00 a. m. on 10. 5. 1996. This document was proved through PW-11 ASI Ramanand and in his cross-examination no question was put regarding this DD entry. A perusal of this dd entry No. 21a shows that an information had been received at Model Town police station from police control room at 2. 20 a. m. that HC Tulsi Ram (PW-10) had given the information that Raghu resident of B-26 bara Bagh had stabbed his wife Kalawati and eight months old child. This document, therefore, corroborates the statement of pw-1 that he had informed the PCR official that the deceased had been stabbed by raghunath. We, therefore, reject this argument also advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 16 ) ALTHOUGH it was suggested to PW-1 in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that Kalawati was lying unconscious and not in a position to speak and she had not told anything about the incident and that suggestion was refuted by the witness but this suggestion at least shows that the accused was present at the spot when the incident took place as otherwise he could not have known that his wife had become unconscious after being stabbed by someone. This suggestion also falsifies his plea of alibi. If actually he had come back to his jhuggi at 6. 00 a. m. in the morning, as is his stand, he would not have been aware about the condition of his wife around 1. 00 a. m. on 10. 5. 1996. In these circumstances we have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of PWs-1 and 5 that the deceased kalawati had said while she was lying badly injured that she and her son had been stabbed by her husband. Since that statement was made by the deceased kalawati after receiving stab injuries around 1. 00 a. m. and she died around 5. 00 a. m. on the same day the prosecution could rely upon that statement as her dying declaration. We find the same to be reliable. Since that statement was made by the deceased kalawati after receiving stab injuries around 1. 00 a. m. and she died around 5. 00 a. m. on the same day the prosecution could rely upon that statement as her dying declaration. We find the same to be reliable. It is now well settled that conviction of an accused can be based only on the basis of a dying declaration alone without any corroboration. Therefore, the appellant could be convicted simply relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased Kalawati. ( 17 ) THE prosecution has, in any case, relied upon some circumstances which according to it form a complete chain sufficient enough to hold the appellant guilty. In this case the incident took place in the middle of night when the appellant was expected to be present in his jhuggi and to be aware of the cause of injuries to his wife and son. PWs 1, 2 and 5 have all deposed that at the time when they had come out of their jhuggies on hearing the cries of a woman the appellant Raghunath was seen outside his jhuggi. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused PW-1 Ramdev had claimed that he was the first person to apprehend raghunath. PW-5 Shamshool Jama has also deposed that he had seen PW-1 ramdev holding Raghunath and in cross-examination he also stated that Ramdev was the first person to apprehend the accused. PW-2 also claims that when he had come out of his jhuggi he had seen raghunath surrounded by the persons of the locality and PW-1 Ramdev was also there. To none of these three witnesses it was suggested in cross-examination on behalf of the accused that the accused had not been apprehended outside his jhuggi as claimed by them. In fact PW-2 Balmiki was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the accused and, therefore, it is not open for the accused now to contend that his evidence should be discarded as been untruthful. PW-10 HC Tulsi Ram had also claimed that when he reached the spot many persons had apprehended Raghunath and he was also taken to the hospital in the pcr van along with the two injured. We have no reason to reject his statement to that effect. PW-10 HC Tulsi Ram had also claimed that when he reached the spot many persons had apprehended Raghunath and he was also taken to the hospital in the pcr van along with the two injured. We have no reason to reject his statement to that effect. In our view, from the evidence of PWs 1, 2 5 and 10 it stands established that at the time of the incident of stabbing the appellant was present in his jhuggi. He has not offered any explanation for the injuries sustained by his wife and son. On the contrary, he took a plea of alibi which he has not even attempted to prove and in these circumstances it tan be safely concluded that he took a false plea and that also becomes a link in the chain of circumstances which can be relied upon by the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused. ( 18 ) ANOTHER circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the find of human blood on the clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at the time of his apprehension. PW-11 ASI Ramanand, the Investigating officer, has deposed that when HC Tulsi ram (PW-10) had brought accused raghunath to the spot he (PW-11) had taken into possession the clothes which he was wearing at that time. In cross-examination this part of his statement was not challenged. PW-15 constable Mahender kumar has deposed that on 09. 07. 1996 he had deposited nine sealed parcels in FSL, malviya Nagar after obtaining the same vide road certificate No. 48/21. This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the accused. PW-16 HC Harminder Singh was the malkhana In-charge at Model Town police station and he has deposed about the deposit of parcels containing the clothes of the appellant in the malkhana on 10. 5. 1996 as also about the deposit of other case property in the form of four sealed parcels. He has also deposed that on 09. 07. 1996 nine sealed parcels were sent to FSL through constable Mahinder Singh vide road certificate No. 48/21. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of the accused. The prosecution has placed on record FSL reports Ex. PW 14/f and Ex. PW 14/g which confirm the find of human blood on the shirt and pant of the appellant. 07. 1996 nine sealed parcels were sent to FSL through constable Mahinder Singh vide road certificate No. 48/21. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of the accused. The prosecution has placed on record FSL reports Ex. PW 14/f and Ex. PW 14/g which confirm the find of human blood on the shirt and pant of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had nothing to say in respect of this scientific evidence in view of the fact that there was no cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses who had dealt with the case property. The appellant has failed to explain the presence of blood on his shirt Ex. P-5 and pant Ex. P-6. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed that these clothes did not belong to him. This is yet another false plea taken by the appellant. As has been noticed already, it was not challenged in the cross-examination of PW-11 ASI Ramanand that shirt Ex. P-5 and pant Ex. P-6 were not the clothes of the appellant which he was wearing at the time of apprehension. ( 19 ) THE prosecution had also relied upon the recovery of one blood stained knife ex. P-1 at the instance of the appellant from his jhuggi on the day of the incident itself. PW-1 Ramdev, PW-5 Shamshool Jama, pw-11 ASI Ramanand and PW-14 Inspector giriraj have all deposed that the appellant/accused had got recovered knife Ex. P-1 from his jhuggi. The FSL reports confirm the presence of human blood on that knife also. That recovery also is an additional circumstance which can be relied upon by the prosecution. The learned trial court has not relied upon this recovery on the ground that these witnesses of recovery have all deposed that the knife had been got recovered by the appellant from his jhuggi but in the first information statement given by PW-1 Ramdev to the police (Ex. PW-1/a)he had claimed that when he had come out of his jhuggi on hearing the cries of a woman he had seen the accused holding a knife in his hand and, therefore, the vidence of recovery of the knife was not reliable and the investigating agency had created evidence to show that the weapon of offence have been recovered from the jhuggi in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused. In our view, the learned trial court was not justified in rejecting this evidence for the reason given by it. No portion of the statement Ex. PW-1/a of PW-1 Ramdev was confronted to him regarding the knife either by the Public prosecutor or by the defence counsel. Without that the learned Judge could not have relied upon that part of the statement ex. PW-1/a where it had been mentioned that PW-1 had seen a knife in the hand of the appellant Raghunath. It is now well settled that any statement made by a witness during the investigation of a crime to the Investigating Officer is not substantive evidence which can be relied upon. It can only be used for contradicting the maker of that statement either by the prosecutor or by the defence counsel and that too only after confronting the witness with the particular portion of his prior statement to the police. Ex. PW-1/a has although been treated as an FIR but it is doubtful whether it could be treated as an FIR since at 2. 20 a. m. the police had already recorded an information as DD No. 21a, Ex. PW-11/a that raghu had killed his wife and son. That was the first information about the murder which the police had received and on receipt thereof the investigation had commenced. That intimation was, therefore, was the FIR. In any case, even an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can also be used either for corroborating its author or contradicting him if he deviates there from. In the present case PW-1 had denied that he had seen a knife in the hand of the appellant when he was apprehended. He was then not confronted with his statement ex. PW-1/a wherein it had been so recorded, as has been noticed by the learned trial judge. We, therefore, of the view that the recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of the appellant is also an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. ( 20 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the appellant's guilt stands established from the dying declaration of the deceased as deposed by PWs 1 and 5. We, therefore, of the view that the recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of the appellant is also an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. ( 20 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the appellant's guilt stands established from the dying declaration of the deceased as deposed by PWs 1 and 5. Apart from that, from the aforesaid other circumstances which we have found to have been established beyond any doubt and which according to us form a complete chain there can be no other conclusion except that it was the appellant and appellant alone who had murdered his wife and his infant child. We find no infirmity in the final conclusion of the learned trial court arrived at in the judgment under challenge holding the appellant guilty of murder of his wife and son. Consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 21 ) IN the result, we dismiss Criminal Appeal no. 270 of 2000 and confirm the conviction of the appellant Raghunath @ Raghu for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife Kalawati and infant child lokesh and we uphold the judgment dated 22. 11. 1999 and order dated 27. 11. 1999 in sessions Case No. 217/97 in respect of FIR no. 207/96 of Police Station Model Town.