JUDGMENT I. Shah, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 25-11-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kok-rajhar in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2006 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him thereby to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment of six months. The facts which led to trial of the accused-appellant are as follows:-- On 01.11.2004, Md. Hakimuddin visited the house of Karim Ali for 2/3 times looking for him. He told Karim's wife that Md. Naser Ali and Md. Azir Ali had wanted to see him. Around 7.00 p.m., Karim went to Md. Aaiz Ali's house on social visit where accused Motleb Ali, in collaboration of accused Hakimuddin, Nazir Ali and Azir Ali stuck multiple 'khukri' blows causing death of Karim Ali. Aaiz Ali and his wife saw the incident. Md. Jamal Seikh, VDP Secretary of the Village lodged information to the Officer-in-Charge of Kokrajhar Police Station. The information so received was entered in General diary. On the basis of G.D. entry, police set in motion and visited the place of occurrence. Inquest on the dead body was held by Executive Magistrate and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On 02-11-2004, Md. Gaziur Rahaman, brother of the deceased lodged a formal written ejahar and on the basis of the said ejahar, police registered Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 239/2004 under Section 302/ 34, IPC. Accused Motleb Ali was found absconding. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Section 302/ 34, IPC against the accused Motleb Ali, Hakimuddin, Nasiruddin and Aziz Ali Seikh. 2. The accused persons namely, Hakimuddin Sheikh, Nasiruddin Sheikh and Motleb Ali faced the trial and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 302/ 34, IPC. The accused Azad Ali Sheikh was declared absconder. 3. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr PC, denied all the allegations levelled against them and placed that they are innocent. The defence case is total denial and no defence evidence was adduced. Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused Hakimuddin Sheikh and Nasiruddin Sheikh, held the accused-appellant Motleb Ali guilty under Section 302, IPC. The accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr PC, denied all the allegations levelled against them and placed that they are innocent. The defence case is total denial and no defence evidence was adduced. Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused Hakimuddin Sheikh and Nasiruddin Sheikh, held the accused-appellant Motleb Ali guilty under Section 302, IPC. The accused Motleb Ali was convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 4. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.U. Mondal, has urged that the genesis of the crime has been suppressed by the prosecution. The ejahar dated 02-11-2004 and the evidence of Alimun Bewa (PW 8) suggest involvement of accused persons acquitted by the trial Court, but none of the witnesses at the time of evidence implicated them during the trial. Learned senior counsel further urged that the G.D. entry on the basis of telephonic information was first in the point of time but the said G.D. entry was not produced before the trial Court. The subsequent written ejahar cannot be treated as FIR. Further more, there is discrepancy in the ocular and medical evidence which was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and so the trial Court ought not to have relied on their evidence. 5. Per contra, Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned P.P., Assam has supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that no interference is called for. The accused was convicted and sentenced on the basis of direct evidence. 6. PW 1, Misiran Bibi and her husband Md. Azij Ali have claimed that they witnessed that the accused Motleb Ali chased the victim Karim Ali and stabbed him with a 'khukri' causing his death. Deceased Karim Ali was uncle of PW 1 and the incident occurred in the courtyard of PWs 1 & 2's house. PW 2 stated that he tried to restrain the accused but the accused asked him to give side. PW 2 also asked the accused why he committed murder in his courtyard as this might put him (PW 2) in trouble. After the incident, Motleb went away. Hearing the commotion, other people and Gaziur, brother of the deceased, came to the place of occurrence. 7. PW 3, Gaziur Rahman a reported witness. PW 2 also asked the accused why he committed murder in his courtyard as this might put him (PW 2) in trouble. After the incident, Motleb went away. Hearing the commotion, other people and Gaziur, brother of the deceased, came to the place of occurrence. 7. PW 3, Gaziur Rahman a reported witness. Isub Ali (PW 5) informed him that Motleb and Hakim killed his brother in Aziz Ali's house. PW 3 rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. He noticed injuries on head and chest of the body. PW 1 and PW 2 told him that accused Motleb stabbed Karim by means of a dagger. Karim's wife told him that on the same day, Hakim had enquired about Karim. PW 2 accordingly lodged the ejahar. 8. PW 5, Isub Ali Mondal in his evidence stated that on the fateful evening Karim had partaken rice in his house and left his house. Immediately thereafter, PW 5 heard his cry. PW 3, picking up a lathi, went to the direction and found Karim in Aziz Ali's courtyard. He also saw accused Motleb there and scolted him. Motleb brandished a 'Khukri' which he was holding and threatened him. The blow hit his lathi. Thereafter, Motleb ran away from there. PW 5 also ran after him but could not catch him. He noticed injuries on the head, abdomen and chest of the deceased and he (PW 5) informed Gazi (PW 3). 9. PW 6 Monnaf Ali, PW 7 Md. Jamal Sheikh, PW 79 Kulsum Bibi and PW 10 Md. Shaha Ali Sheikh, all came to the place of occurrence hearing commotion there. They saw the dead body of deceased with multiple injuries. PW 1 and PW 2 reported them that accused Motleb killed the deceased. 10. In the cross examination PW 1 land PW 2 denied that they stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused Motleb had dealt with only one blow. The said statement of PWs 1 & 2 recorded under Section 161, Cr PC was not confirmed by the Investigating Officer. 11. PW 4, Dr. Nikunja Das held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found as follows:-- POST MORTEM REPORT. Ref No. Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 239/04 under Section 302/ 34, IPC. Name, Sex, Age & Caste: Karim Ali/M/M, Muslim, General. 11. PW 4, Dr. Nikunja Das held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found as follows:-- POST MORTEM REPORT. Ref No. Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 239/04 under Section 302/ 34, IPC. Name, Sex, Age & Caste: Karim Ali/M/M, Muslim, General. Name of constable by whom brought and names of relatives accompanying: C/286 Sabir Ch. Talukar, Yusuf Mondal. DATE AND HOUR OR Despatch: 2-11-04 Arrival at dead house: 2-11-04 Examination: 2-11-04. Information furnished by Police: As per inquest Report. By whom identified before Medical Officer: C/286 Sabir Ch., Talukdar. 1. EXTERNAL APPEARANCE. 1. Condition of subject stout Emaciated, decomposed ect : A Male dead body of 35 yrs. was sent for P.M. Examination. Rigor Marti’s both upper and lower limbs present shape cut injury over the (Rt) side of face and neck extending from upper part of the neck laterally to the Zygoma. 2. Wounds-position, and character : Mandible is completely cut. 5 inches X 2½ inches X 3 inches Jagular vein and artery on right side were severed. 3. Bruise position size and Nature : Sharp cut injury over the scalp and skull below the occipital extrusion of Brain matter. 5 inches ½ inch brain cavity. Sharp Cut injury over the frontal region. Posteriorly 3 inches X 1½ inches X Brain. Cavity-Sharp cut injury over the deltoid region (L), forearm (L) upper Part. 4. Mark of ligature on neck Dissection. etc.: 1½ inches X 1½ inches X 1 inch each stab injury over the chest (L) below the nipple. 1½” X½” X Chest cavity stab injury over the chest (L) above 1 inch X ½ inch X chest. Cavity II. CRANUM AND SPINAL CANAL 1. Scalp, skull, vertebrae: already described. 2. Membrane: Laceration present. 3. Brain and spinal cord: Lacerated present. Note: The spinal canal need not be examined unless any indication of disease of injury exist. III. THRODAX. 1. Wall ribs and cartilages: already described. 2. Pleurae: Lacerated present 3. Laryax and tracheae: Healthy. Right lung: Healthy. Left lung: lacerated present Pericar (dium): do Heart: do Vessels: Healthy. IV. ABDOMEN 1. Walls: Already described. 2. Peritonoum: Lacerated present 3. Mouth, pharyax, oesophagus: Healthy. 4. Stomach and its contains: Gastric/Juice and food material seen 5. Small intestine and its contents: Intestine juice present. 6. Large intestine and its contents: Gas and faecal matters seen. 7. Liver; Healthy 8. Spleen: Raptured. 9. Kidneys: Healthy. 10. Bladder: Healthy. 11. IV. ABDOMEN 1. Walls: Already described. 2. Peritonoum: Lacerated present 3. Mouth, pharyax, oesophagus: Healthy. 4. Stomach and its contains: Gastric/Juice and food material seen 5. Small intestine and its contents: Intestine juice present. 6. Large intestine and its contents: Gas and faecal matters seen. 7. Liver; Healthy 8. Spleen: Raptured. 9. Kidneys: Healthy. 10. Bladder: Healthy. 11. Organs of generation external and internal: Healthy. V. MUSCLES, BONES AND JOINTS. 1. Injury: Already described. 2. Disease or deformity: do 3. Fracture: do 4. Dislocation: do MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OR DISEASE. -Stab injury over the abdomen 1 inch X ½ inch X abdomen cavity. -Stab injury over the chest (L) Lower part laterally 2 Nos. 1 inch X ½ inch X chest cavity each. -Stab injury over the neck (L) ½ inch X ½ inch. -Spleen ruptured, heart punctured PW 4 opined that cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage following multiple injuries and brain lacerations followed by sharp & cut injuries and stab injuries. The injuries were antemortem and homicide in nature. 12. PW 3 stated that the noticed injuries on the head and chest of the deceased. PW 2 stated that Motleb had stabbed 6/7 times on the chest of the deceased. According to doctor, there were 12 numbers of injuries on the body of the deceased and out of them 4 numbers were on the chest. All other witnesses also noticed 10 to 12 numbers of injuries on the body. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal. We find that there is no discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence. 13. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the witnesses who have corroborated the prosecution case are interested witnesses. The law as to reliability of relative witnesses are well settled. In the case of Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 , it was held that mere relationship, is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. ' Foundation has to be laid, if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 14. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. ' Foundation has to be laid, if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 14. In the present case, PWs 1 and 2 saw the accused inflicting 'khukri' blow. PW 5, Isub Ali Mondal corroborating their evidence deposed that hearing the cry of Karim (deceased), he went to that direction and found Karim in Aaiz Ali's courtyard (PWs 1 & 2's courtyard). PW 5 saw accused Motleb and scolded him. Accused Motleb brandished a khukri and threatened him. PW 6 Monnaf Ali, PW 7 Jamal Sheikh and PW 10 Md. Shaha Ali Sheikh are independent witnesses. They arrived at the place of occurrence just after the occurrence. They were informed that the accused was the assailant. Thus, the testimony of the eye-witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2 finds complete corroboration. There is nothing on record to suggest that the eye witnesses had any animus against the accused appellant to implicate him in a false case leaving the real assailant from the clutches of law. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the information lodged to the police over telephone was first information. Police moved for investigation on the basis of that information. The information entered' in the general diary was not exhibited. The ejahar in writing after the commencement of investigation will be statements falling under Section 162, Cr PC and such information cannot be treated as FIR. The first information i.e. general diary entry has been suppressed. The Investigating Officer in his evidence admitted that the name of the assailant was not disclosed in by the informant when the information was lodged over phone. The written ejahar subsequently lodged implicated the appellant and other accused persons. 16. In the case of Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537 , it was held; It may be true that PW 2 had informed the Officer-in-Charge of the Police on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said call had to be made has been noticed by us here to before. 16. In the case of Vikram v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537 , it was held; It may be true that PW 2 had informed the Officer-in-Charge of the Police on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said call had to be made has been noticed by us here to before. The Head Constable states that he had written down the same but then it must have been a cryptic report and only for the purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence. He as well as the investigating officer did not say that it was detailed report. If, in the aforementioned premise, another first information report which was a detailed one came to be recorded, no exception can be taken to the same being treated as a first information report. 17. In the case of Panurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 773 , in para 38, it was held; it is fairly well settled that first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to discredit the testimony of the maker thereof and it cannot be utilized for contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses. In other words, the first information report cannot be utilized for contradicting or discrediting the testimony of other witnesses who deposed in respect of incident. It is equally well set-Lied that the earliest information in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is to be treated as the first information report. It sets the criminal law in motion and the investigation commences on that basis. Although first information report is not: expected to be Encyclopaedia of events, but an information to the police to be "first information report" under Section 154(1) must contain some essential and relevant details of the incident. A cryptic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information may not be treated as first information report. 18. It appears from the evidence on record that PW 7 Md. Jamal Sheikh lodged information to police. PW 11, the Investigating Officer deposed that Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station received the telephonic message that "Karim Ali of Duramoni Village had been stabbed to death (with a dagger) by some one from the same Village". PW 11 was asked to conduct preliminary investigation. PW 11 accordingly visited the place of occurrence. Jamal Sheikh lodged information to police. PW 11, the Investigating Officer deposed that Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station received the telephonic message that "Karim Ali of Duramoni Village had been stabbed to death (with a dagger) by some one from the same Village". PW 11 was asked to conduct preliminary investigation. PW 11 accordingly visited the place of occurrence. He brought the dead body to police station when it was kept for the night. On 02-11-2004, the written ejahar was lodged, case was registered and inquest on the dead body was held. 19. The telephonic message to the police was lodged by the VDP Secretary. He did not see the occurrence. His intention was to call the police. Moreover, it has been held in catena of cases that however important a document, a first information report is, it can never be treated as a piece of substantive evidence and the fact that no first information was made is not in itself a ground for throwing out a case (AIR 1962 Cal 64;). 20. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the accused (appellant) in active collaboration of and three accused killed the deceased. PW 3, the informant in his evidence stated that PWs 1 and 2 informed him that accused Motleb killed the deceased. Thereafter, Karim's wife (deceased's wife) told that on the same day morning, Hakim had enquired about Karim. PW 8, wife of the deceased, deposed that at around 9/10 a.m. on the date of incident, Hakim Ali came to their house and told her husband that Nasir and Azij had called him. But her husband did not go. The deceased went to some other place and returned home before evening. After having' Iftaar' he went out and thereafter PW 8 heard commotion. 21. Thus from the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the other accused persons namely, Nazir, Azij and Hakim were named in the FIR as because Hakim visited the house of deceased and told him that Nasir and Azij wanted him to see. The incident occurred in the evening. None of the witnesses could describe the nexus between accused appellant and accused persons. The trial Court rightly acquitted other accused persons for want of incriminating materials against them. 22. The incident occurred in the evening. None of the witnesses could describe the nexus between accused appellant and accused persons. The trial Court rightly acquitted other accused persons for want of incriminating materials against them. 22. In the case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 , it has been observed as follows:-- Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escapes than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take the place of judicial evaluation. 23. In this case the prosecution case is well supported by the eye witnesses as well as medical evidence. The prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal and the accused was responsible for the death caused to the deceased. Therefore, the conviction for the offence committed under Section 302, IPC and the sentence to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, further imprisonment for six months are upheld. Appeal is dismissed. Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment to the Court below. Appeal dismissed.