JUDGMENT : V.P. Vaish, J. The appellant, Md. Aminur Islam impugns the Judgment and Order 09.01.2014 passed by learned Adhoc Judge, Fast Track Court, Tura, in Sessions case No. 11 of 2010, whereby the appellant/accused was held guilty for committing the offence under Section-304 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and order dated 15.01.2014 whereby the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section-304 (Part-II) IPC. A. Facts In Brief 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge sheet is as under:- 3. On 21.07.2015 FIR was recorded by Md. Jamsher Ali (Son of the deceased), younger brother of the appellant/accused that his elder brother (accused) has given a blow to his father, aged 75 years old, on his chest at his residence due to which his father fell down on the ground and died at the spot. The accused/appellant fled away from the house just after the incident. 4. The appellant/accused was formerly arrested in this case on 31.03.2010 pursuant to the FIR by nearby villagers. During further investigation, police started the investigation by visiting Borotala Sonapur village and took statements of villagers. The inquest of the dead body was conducted by the police and also rough sketch mapping of the place of occurrence was prepared. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. S.W. Momin, Sr. Medical and Health Officer, Tura Civil Hospital on 22nd July, 2005. 5. After hearing both sides and considering material on record of the case, learned trial court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused/appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and charge for the offence under Section-304 IPC was framed on 10th September, 2012. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses. 7. PW-1, Mr. Jamsher Ali is the informant (Son of the deceased). He has deposed that about 7/8 years ago his father died. He also deposed that his father was sick for many days and he was not at home and his father died of heart attack. He brought a doctor to treat his father but in the meantime he died. 8. PW-2, Mr. He has deposed that about 7/8 years ago his father died. He also deposed that his father was sick for many days and he was not at home and his father died of heart attack. He brought a doctor to treat his father but in the meantime he died. 8. PW-2, Mr. Sirajul Islam is the Village Defence Party (VDP) of Rajpur village. He deposed that when he reached the village he saw many people gather in the house of Samsul Hoque. He saw Samsul Hoque was dead. He signed on the Inquest Report prepared by the police which is Exhibit-2. He also deposed that he did not see the accused person present there. He had heard that there was a quarrel between father and son but he did not tell the police that the accused gave a blow on the chest of his father. 9. PW-3, Md. Soleman Haque. He deposed that the deceased was from Borotala Sonapur, Khetadhowa and Khaprabari. He deposed that he saw the dead body lying in the varandah and when he enquired about the cause of death, he was told that the cause of death was due to heart attach. 10. PW-4, Smti Heliza Bibi is the wife of Md. Jamsher Ali (Son of the deceased). She deposed that her father-in-law expired because of heart failure and she was not at home when her father-in-law died. She also deposed that she was informed that there was a quarrel in the house and her husband was not at home. She did not hear that her father-in-law died due to the blow given by the accused. She also deposed that the accused did not assault her father-in-law. 11. PW-5, Dr. S.W. Momin conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He also deposed that on 22.07.2005 at 2:30 PM he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Samsul Hoque and Post Mortem Report is Exhibit-2 which bears his signature at Exb 2(i). The deceased was about 75 years old. He found bruise on the chest on the external area and the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition as a result of blow on the chest. The injury was homicidal in nature. 12. PW-6, SI Polnath Marak who is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that inquest was conducted by him. He found bruise on the chest on the external area and the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition as a result of blow on the chest. The injury was homicidal in nature. 12. PW-6, SI Polnath Marak who is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that inquest was conducted by him. He did not arrest the accused and, therefore, could not identify the accused. He also deposed that after completion of investigation he was transferred to Tura Police Station and he handed over all the documents to the Officer-in-charge Phulbari Police Station. 13. PW-7, S.I. Bishnu Thapa who is the 2nd Investigating Officer. He deposed that he arrested the accused on 31.03.2010 and produced in the Court. He filed charge sheet against the accused. 14. Thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. The appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. 15. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant, Md. Aminur Islam for the offence under Section-304 IPC. 16. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order on sentence the appellant preferred the present appeal. B. Submissions/Arguments On Behalf of The Parties 17. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. PP for State. I have also gone through the material available on the record. 18. Learned counsel for appellant strenuously urged that learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. He stressed that post mortem report cannot be the sole basis of conviction and can only be used to corroborate the evidence available on record. Further, the inquest report is prepared by the police and as such cannot be treated as a piece of admissible evidence. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that learned trial court has failed to appreciate that no due weightage can be to the testimony of Mr. Sirajul Islam (PW-2) for conviction of the appellant as his testimony is based on hearsay evidence. 20. Controverting the arguments of the appellant, learned Addl. PP for State argued that PW-2's evidence (Sirajul Islam) was reliable and it passed the test of General Reliability. Further, FIR was recorded at the instance of Md. Hamsher Ali (PW-1) who is brother of the appellant which corroborates the evidence against the appellant. 20. Controverting the arguments of the appellant, learned Addl. PP for State argued that PW-2's evidence (Sirajul Islam) was reliable and it passed the test of General Reliability. Further, FIR was recorded at the instance of Md. Hamsher Ali (PW-1) who is brother of the appellant which corroborates the evidence against the appellant. He also argued that both the post mortem report and the inquest report points towards guilt of the appellant/accused. C. Analysis And Appreciation of Evidence 21. Before embarking on an evaluation of the rival submissions, it would be apposite to note that it is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that burden of proving guilt of the accused always lies with the prosecution and the prosecution has to prove the guilt 'beyond reasonable doubts'. The maxism that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. Section-105 of the Indian Evidence Act places 'burden of proof' on the accused in the first part and in the second part we find a presumption which the Court can draw regarding the absence of the circumstances which presumption is always rebut table. Therefore, reading the Section as a whole the 'burden of proof' and the presumption have to be considered together. It is axiomatic when the evidence is sufficient as to prove the existence of a fact conclusively then no difficulty arises. But where the accused introduces material to displace the presumption which may affect the prosecution case or create a reasonable doubt about the existence of one or other ingredients of the offence and then it would amount to a case where prosecution failed to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. A broad overview of the core evidence brought by the prosecution to bring home the charges may now be discussed:- 23. On scrutinising of the entire statement, it is clear that nothing material could be elucidated from the statement of (PW-1) Md. Jamsher Ali who is the alleged star witness of the prosecution case. He categorically denied his presence at home at the time of incidence and also involvement of his brother (appellant) in the present case in spite of FIR being recorded at his instance. 24. Jamsher Ali who is the alleged star witness of the prosecution case. He categorically denied his presence at home at the time of incidence and also involvement of his brother (appellant) in the present case in spite of FIR being recorded at his instance. 24. The primary object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion. The prompt and early reporting of the occurrence with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of the prosecution version. It is vital and valuable piece of evidence for appreciating the evidence led at the trial. It is manifest that an FIR is not intended to be a very detailed document and is meant to give only the substance of the allegations made. 25. FIR is not an encyclopedia. It need not contain an exhaustive account of the incident. Non mentioning of minutes details therein does not mean that the facts do not exist and its author was not aware of the details. At that point of time, recording of the statement was to set the police machinery into motion. There is every possibility of minor mismatch between the version recorded in Section-161 of the CrPC and the statement given in Court. 26. It is settled preposition of law that the statement of any witness recorded by the police officer during the course of investigation is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting prosecution. No sanctimony has been attached to the statement of a witness recorded by the police during the course of investigation as before the police witness is susceptible to all kinds of pulls and pressures to follow a particular line and therefore, ultimately it is deposition of a witness before the Court of law which is held to be sanctimonious. 27. In view of the settled principles of law statement of Md. Jamsher Ali (PW-1) before the Court cannot be the basis of conviction when he wholly denied his presence and involvement of accused in the present case. 28. 27. In view of the settled principles of law statement of Md. Jamsher Ali (PW-1) before the Court cannot be the basis of conviction when he wholly denied his presence and involvement of accused in the present case. 28. PW-2 (Sirajul Islam), in his statement deposed that he belonged to a neighbouring village and on the day of incident he heard from some people that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in the village of Borotala Sonapur and when he reached at the spot, the deceased had already died. Statement of PW-2 is totally based on hearsay evidence. 29. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person whose statement is relied upon, into Court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross examination. The phrase-hearsay evidence is not used in the Indian Evidence Act because it is in accurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record whatsoever, proof of which is not admitted on other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of on any fact asserted. This species of evidence cannot be tested by cross examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to protract legal investigations to an embrassing and dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its incompetence to satisfy the mind of a judge about the existence of a fact, and the fraud may be practised with impunity, under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. 30. Therefore, learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled law of hearsay evidence and gave undue weight age to the statement of PW-2 in conviction of the appellant. 31. 30. Therefore, learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled law of hearsay evidence and gave undue weight age to the statement of PW-2 in conviction of the appellant. 31. Further, as per the Post Mortem Report prepared by Dr. S.W. Momin, (PW-5) cause of death was cardiac arrest due to vagal in-hibition as a result of the blow on the chest and injury was homicidal in nature. Inquest Report also corroborates the same. It is inevitable to note here that post mortem report merely points out that circumstances in which death was caused and cause of death and not the person who caused the death. It is a corroborated evidence which is used in completing the missing links in the chain of events and therefore, cannot be used as a sole basis for conviction. 32. It is settled principle of law the object of inquest proceedings prepared under Section-174 CrPC is to ascertain whether person has died under un-natural circumstances or an un-natural death and if so, what the cause of death is? The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section-174 CrPC. The name of the assailants and the manner of assault are not required to be mentioned in the inquest report. The purpose of preparing the inquest report is for making a note in regard to identification marks of the accused. The Inquest Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. The contents of the inquest report cannot be termed as evidence but they can be looked into to test the veracity of the witnesses. 33. It is also settled law that the post mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence but the Doctor's statement in the Court who conducted post mortem has the credibility of a substantive evidence. The significance of the evidence of doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon thereafter and it would then be the prosecutor's duty/obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. D. Conclusion 34. In the instant case, in view of the settled position of law, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. D. Conclusion 34. In the instant case, in view of the settled position of law, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, judgment of learned Trial Court cannot be upheld. 35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 9th January, 2014 and Order dated 15th January, 2014 passed by learned Fast Track Court, Tura, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2010, are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 36. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the concerned Superintendent jail for information and necessary action. 37. Lower Court case record be sent back forthwith. Crl. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2015: 38. The application has been rendered infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly.