DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 20th of August, 1991 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai by which the appellants were convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and after being heard on sentence on 21st August, 1991 they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for being convicted under Section 302/201 IPC as also to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years for being convicted under Section 201 IPC. 2. The case related to the death of one Meena Devi who happened to be the sister of P.W.9 who alleged that his sister had been murdered by the accused persons and her dead body made to disappear. P.W.9 stated that he having received an information about the incident went to village-Chhaurahi and found the house of the accused persons locked and after making enquiry from the persons of the neighbour-hood, he came to know that Meena Devi had been murdered in the night intervening 4th - 5th of November, 1979 and her dead body was cremated. 3. The case was registered by drawing the FIR (Ext-3) on the basis of written report of P.W.9 which was marked Ext-2 and after close of the investigation, seven accused persons were sent up for trial, out of whom, four appellants were convicted of the offences, we have just pointed out. 4. Eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and what appears is that P.Ws.1 to 7 were declared hostile on account of having not supported the prosecution case. P.W.8 Tej Narain Mahton stated that he learnt from some persons, whose name he did not disclose that Meena Devi had been killed and a story was hatched up that the very residential house of the accused persons caught fire and Meena Devi was engulfed by the flames and died of burn injuries. P.W.8 has stated that he rushed to the house of P.W.9 Maheshwar Mahton to inform him and accordingly, he also came to village- Chhaurahi and after gathering information lodged the report. 5. We have gone through the evidence of the two witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9. We find from it that P.W.8 learnt about the details of the occurrence from many persons but he did not disclose the names of those persons. 5. We have gone through the evidence of the two witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9. We find from it that P.W.8 learnt about the details of the occurrence from many persons but he did not disclose the names of those persons. It is true, that P.W.8 had informed P.W.9 Maheshwar Mahton, but the main source of information was never disclosed by P.W.8 and again P.W.9 was stating that he had also enquired about the incident from the villagers of village- Chhaurahi and had found the information correct, but what we find is that this evidence is again not admissible on account of the fact that P.W.9 also did not disclose names of persons from whom he had gathered the facts in connection with the commission of the offence. Thus, what appears is that the primary source of their information was not placed before the Court by P.Ws.8 and 9 and, as such, the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 9 was purely hearsay not being admissible in evidence and, as such, could not be acted upon to raise an inference in favour of the proof of charges. 6. The learned trial Judge while writing the judgment has referred to some of the statements made by the witnesses during course of investigation including the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate. We are afraid that if such statements in investigation are treated as evidence, then the whole procedural safeguards which have been put in place by enacting the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be a farce and of no utility and a Court may go to convict a person merely by going through the records of investigation, i.e., the statement of witnesses which is not the evidence. Evidence is the statement of a witness recorded on oath by a Judge in course of a judicial proceeding in which the party adverse to one who had produced the witnesses, had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness. Utilizing the statements in investigation, even if the statement was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in our opinion could not fall within the category of evidence it remains always a statement in investigation, and, as such, using that statement could be setting dangerous precedence as regards the trial procedure. We disapproved of the hybrid procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in appreciating the evidence. 7. The remaining two witnesses were formal in character. We disapproved of the hybrid procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in appreciating the evidence. 7. The remaining two witnesses were formal in character. 8. After having considered the evidence and the quality thereof, what we find is that the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC was not sustainable in the face of the evidence and thus, in law. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are hereby set aside by allowing the present appeal. The four appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 9. We have been assisted by Shri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, the Amicus Curiae in this matter. We direct that Sri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh be paid one consolidated fee of hearing by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee and for that purpose let copies of the first and the last pages be made over to him. ?