JUDGMENT : HEMANT GUPTA, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th September, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2011/395 of 2008 (S.J.), convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, as also the order of sentence dated 27th September, 2011 sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case was set in motion by Nathun Yadav. He stated that on 2nd October, 1999 at 6.00 AM after he woke up and came to the door to his house then he saw Sunaina Devi, wife of the appellant, opening the drain. Raja Yadav, his brother, asked her not to open the drain but she refused and began to demolish the “Nad”. Raja Yadav tried to prevent her to do so, whereupon Sunaina Devi threw a spade upon him. Raja Yadav received injury on his arm. He asked them not to quarrel with the ladies. At that time, Nadlu Yadav came there. At the same time, Mithilesh Yadav also came down from his house and fired a shot at him with pistol. The shot hit on the neck of Nadlu Yadav. Nadlu Yadav fell down. Then Sukendra Yadav and Madan Yadav came there carrying on lathi and khanti and began to assault him. He received injury on his head. The cause of dispute is said to be 7 decimals of his land in front of the house of the appellant over which he wanted to take forcible possession. 3. On the basis of such statement, an F.I.R. (Ext.2) was recorded and the investigation was set at motion. On completion of the investigation, the accused was made to stand trial. 4. The prosecution examined PW 1 Ram Pravesh Choudhary and PW 2 Mahendra Yadav. But both the witnesses turned hostile. Nathun Yadav, the informant, was examined as PW 3, Shailendra Yadav as PW 4, Kamaldeo Yadav as PW 5, Raja Yadav as PW 6, Kanti Devi as PW 7 were examined in support of the prosecution story, whereas Dr. Arvind Prasad was examined as PW 8 to prove the post mortem conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav. Nathun Yadav, the informant, was examined as PW 3, Shailendra Yadav as PW 4, Kamaldeo Yadav as PW 5, Raja Yadav as PW 6, Kanti Devi as PW 7 were examined in support of the prosecution story, whereas Dr. Arvind Prasad was examined as PW 8 to prove the post mortem conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. The accused examined Mithu Yadav, DW 1, in his defence. On the basis of the evidence led, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all the witnesses are interested witnesses being members of the same family, therefore, their evidence is of interested and unreliable witnesses. It is also argued that the doctor who has conducted the post mortem examination has not been examined nor there is evidence that he was not available or could not be produced without unreasonable delay or expense, therefore, statement of PW 8 Dr. Arvind Prasad, who has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav will not be sufficient proof of the post mortem report. It is also argued that Investigating Officer has not been examined nor the First Information Report produced in evidence by the informant but has been accepted in evidence by the court subsequently. Because of such legal infirmity, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. 6. All the witnesses of the occurrence deposed that the occurrence took place early in the morning at 6 O’ clock. At the time, the persons who are residing in the nearby location alone would be available. PW 3 Nathun Yadav, the informant, is the brother of the deceased. Since the occurrence took place outside the house of the informant, his presence cannot be doubted. So as the presence of his younger brother Raja Yadav, whose name was mentioned by the informant in the FIR itself. PW 3 Nathun Yadav deposed the manner of firing shot by Mithilesh Yadav upon Nadlu and that Nadlu was taken to Patna for treatment but he died. Similarly, the statement of PW 6 Raja Yadav that Nadlu was fired upon by Mithilesh and he died on account of fire arm injury. PW 3 Nathun Yadav deposed the manner of firing shot by Mithilesh Yadav upon Nadlu and that Nadlu was taken to Patna for treatment but he died. Similarly, the statement of PW 6 Raja Yadav that Nadlu was fired upon by Mithilesh and he died on account of fire arm injury. The statements of these two witnesses are corroborated by PW 4 Shailendra Yadav who deposed that it was Mithilesh who fired upon Nadlu. This is on account of such fire injury Nadlu died. PW 7 Kanti Devi also deposed that Mithilesh came out from his house and fired from his pistol on Nadlu’s neck and he died thereafter. PW 5 Kamaldeo Yadav, father of PW 4, is not an eyewitness as he came to the place of occurrence later on. Therefore, PW 3 Nathun Yadav, PW 4 Shailendra Yadav, PW 6 Raja Yadav and PW 7 Kanti Devi are consistent and categorical that it was the fire shot by Mithilesh on Nadlu which took his life. 7. DW 1 Mithu Yadav produced by the appellant in defence also admits that the death of Nadlu Yadav was caused in a fire arm injury but that fire arm injury was attributed to one Birendra Yadav. He also admits that Raja Yadav got injury in the occurrence. Therefore, the presence of Raja Yadav stands admitted by the defence witness as well. In view of the consistent evidence, the learned trial court rightly found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. 8. The argument that the witnesses are interested is untenable. Though PW 3 and PW 6 are the brothers of the deceased but mere fact that the witnesses are relations will not be sufficient to discard their testimony. It would only require more care and caution while appreciating their testimony. They have stood the test of cross-examination. No discrepancy or contradiction could be brought out even in the case of large number of eyewitnesses. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument that the statement of the witnesses examined cannot be taken into consideration. 9. However, the issue is required to be examined as to the consequence of non-examination of Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination. Dr. Arvind Prasad, PW 8, is a class-fellow of Dr. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument that the statement of the witnesses examined cannot be taken into consideration. 9. However, the issue is required to be examined as to the consequence of non-examination of Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination. Dr. Arvind Prasad, PW 8, is a class-fellow of Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav and he proved the post mortem report as he is aware of the handwriting and signature of Dr. Yadav. The post mortem report produced is the original report. There is no evidence that Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav could not be found or whose attendance could not be procured without any amount of delay or expense. However, such aspect would make the report admissible even without examining of a person conversant with the handwriting. 10. In respect of post mortem report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat [ (1983) 2 SCC 174 ], held that the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. In case of injury it will prove that the injuries have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. In the case of Vijender vs. State of Delhi [ (1997) 6 SCC 171 ], the Supreme Court found the post mortem report is not admissible when the carbon copy of the post mortem report was produced by the Record Clerk of the hospital. The Court held that such is not the best evidence to prove a fact in terms of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Evidence Act’). 11. The post mortem report is the evidence of determining the cause of death. The cause of death in the present case is evident from the testimony of the eye-witnesses. Even the defence witness deposed that the decease Nadlu died on account of fire from the pistol. Therefore, the fact which is sought to be proved by the post mortem report stands established by the other evidence on record. In terms of Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts except the contents of the document may be proved by oral evidence. The contents of document can be proved only be primary or by secondary evidence. Therefore, the fact which is sought to be proved by the post mortem report stands established by the other evidence on record. In terms of Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts except the contents of the document may be proved by oral evidence. The contents of document can be proved only be primary or by secondary evidence. The original copy of the post mortem report is the primary evidence proved by a person who is conversant with the handwriting and signature of the executant. Therefore, such document is duly proved. In terms of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the statement made by a person who could not be found or whose attendance could not be procured without an amount of delay or expense makes his statement admissible. To make a statement admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act on satisfying the conditions thereunder, the statement can be read into evidence without any further proof. Therefore, it is not Section 32 of the Evidence Act which would be applicable in the present case but the post mortem report would be deemed to be proved in terms of Section 61 of the Evidence Act. 12. Though the FIR was not proved by the informant in his statement appearing as PW 3, but that would be only an irregularity as his statement on oath in Court is not contradicting any part of the statement made to the Police. Still further, the defence has not contradicted the witness from any part of his previous statement. Therefore, even in the absence of formal proof of the FIR, the prosecution story does not become doubtful. It may be stated that subsequently the learned trial court passed an order on 8th June, 2011 to exhibit the FIR on the ground that it is a public document. 13. Therefore, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2011/395 of 2008 (S.J.), which may warrant interference in the present appeal. 14. The appeal is dismissed. ANJANA PRAKASH, J. Having gone through the judgment of my erudite brother, I beg to differ, without any disrespect to him, and hence, a separate judgment since not doing so would amount to infidelity to my idea of justice. 2. 14. The appeal is dismissed. ANJANA PRAKASH, J. Having gone through the judgment of my erudite brother, I beg to differ, without any disrespect to him, and hence, a separate judgment since not doing so would amount to infidelity to my idea of justice. 2. According to me, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is either a case of acquittal or at best punishable under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code which deduction I shall draw while discussing the evidence on record and taking the reader along the journey. 3. Before I begin, I want to, briefly, express as to what in my understanding is criminal law all about. According to me, it is the core of all laws since, whereas all the other laws revolve around a man, this law is its embodiment. It is much more complex than any other law because there are no set formulae of interpretation. In it are captured issues of human rights, closely woven are constitutional rights and the economic and sociological patterns, understanding of which, is essential, if one attempts to do justice. Unlike other laws sometimes it appears illogical, like life itself, and there is an element of surprise at every twist and turn of the story. Nothing is predictable and therefore each case is unique in its features. I have felt that since no forensic deduction is possible it makes the job of an interpreter not only wee bit more difficult but also requires more vigilance. However, it is these elements which make this branch of law extremely fascinating and absorbing. Dealing with this law is like reading a book. You get an opportunity to observe and interpret the entire spectrum of human behaviour. Ironically, a Judge is required to have compassion and yet remain dispassionate maintaining a balance of which is tricky business. This law gives license to one to take liberties with the mind of another, enter into it, swim and discover whether there was intent? or was it knowledge? or none of the above? Why did a person behave in a certain situation? What impelled him? Was it cold heartedness or was it because he was driven to it. Sometimes the deduction surprises you, sometimes confuses you but no matter what you deduce there can never be an agreement on the act nor can you condone it. or none of the above? Why did a person behave in a certain situation? What impelled him? Was it cold heartedness or was it because he was driven to it. Sometimes the deduction surprises you, sometimes confuses you but no matter what you deduce there can never be an agreement on the act nor can you condone it. It is for this reason a Judge dealing with criminal matters is required to rise above his prejudices, beliefs and learn to understand situations one could never conceive of, and then pass a judgment, on full understanding of attending circumstances. Since human lives are involved, one cannot afford a minutest of slip. One has to look for cues and clues and even in cases of direct evidence apply the hackneyed but apt adage which goes something like. “Men can lie but circumstances do not lie”. How else would one determine the extent of culpability but by appreciating the circumstances under which the occurrence has taken place. And lastly but most importantly one can conclude only as the wisdom of the legislature wills, which enjoins a Judge, to compulsorily view a situation from all angles. 4. Had the legislature intended that every act of culpable homicide be termed murder, there would be no alternative sentences and there would be complete uniformity in concluding that every time a person picks up a gun and shoots another it would be plain murder and nothing else. It is in this context, let us turn to Indian Penal Code. We find it has been drafted with amazing finesse and takes into consideration subtle but distinct variations of human behaviour and expects a Judge to closely examine each case to consider its applicability. For example, whereas section 299 describes murder being death caused with intent or knowledge section 300 further includes bodily injury as well, but importantly carves out certain exceptions. According to its dictates, if death is caused on sudden extreme provocation, in self defence, if one acts in public duty, without premeditation or with on a risk undertaken with consent of an adult such death would not be murder. Apart from this, chapter IV also provides general and specific exceptions. I thought this preamble was essential because I have not yet decided on the extent of culpability of the Appellant, if at all. 5. Apart from this, chapter IV also provides general and specific exceptions. I thought this preamble was essential because I have not yet decided on the extent of culpability of the Appellant, if at all. 5. Now to look to the facts of the instant case and applicability of law upon the same. We find the Prosecution has produced 8 witnesses in all out of which PW 1, 2 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile, PW 4 is on the factum of occurrence whereas PW 3 the Informant, PW6 his brother, and PW 7 his daughter, are eyewitnesses. PW 8 is a doctor on whose identification of writing of the Doctor, who prepared the Postmortem Report, it has been marked Ext.1. The effect of this and that of the Prosecution not proving the First Information Report even though Informant has been examined as PW 3 (Nathun Yadav) shall be considered at a later stage. Let us first come to his statement in Court. He says that the occurrence had taken place nine years ago at about 6 AM. While he was at his door an altercation started between them and the wife of Appellant Mithlesh on account of land dispute. His deceased brother Nadlu also arrived who was shot on the neck by the Appellant. He himself was assaulted by Madan, Sikendar and wife of Appellant Mithilesh with Kuddal due to which he sustained injury on his forehead whereas PW7 Raja sustained injury on the arm. He further stated that the injured /deceased was removed to Gaya thereafter to Patna where he died in course of treatment. He then identified the Appellant in the dock and stated that he had given a written report to the police under his thumb impression. In cross-examination, he stated that the occurrence had taken place near his door and both the parties were altercating and assaulting each other and the fight went on for about an hour. He describes the place of occurrence being bounded on the north by house of Chamru, South a ditch, East Jadu Mahto and West his own. It was suggested to him that the Appellant was falsely implicated because they had wanted to grab his land which he denied. He describes the place of occurrence being bounded on the north by house of Chamru, South a ditch, East Jadu Mahto and West his own. It was suggested to him that the Appellant was falsely implicated because they had wanted to grab his land which he denied. From his evidence we find that it is his own concession that an altercation had taken place between the parties on account of land dispute which escalated into an assault by both sides. We find that even though he says he himself had sustained injury on his head there is no medical support in this regard and that he had given a report under his thumb impression but does not disclose as to who had scribed it. He importantly does not categorically say that the version he was giving in Court was the same as in the Written Report nor does he prove it. The question now arises as to its effect. 6. As we know a statement about a cognizable offence is given to a police officer in terms of Section 154 Cr. P. C or a Complaint can be filed in Court in terms of Section 200 Cr. P. C However, these statements are not substantive evidence and can be used only for purpose of corroboration in terms of Section 157 and for contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act. In such circumstances, evidently the requirement of law is that the Informant proves his fard-e-bayan/Written Report while deposing in Court so as to corroborate his earlier statement. We know the burden of proof in terms of Section 103 Evidence Act lies on the party who wishes to prove a certain fact. Hence, to prove the fact that the Informant had given a similar statement earlier it was for the prosecution to prove and exhibit the fard-e-bayan. On its failure to do so, not only an adverse inference will be drawn against the prosecution in terms of Section 114 Evidence Act, it will also lead the Court to draw a conclusion that the Informant is giving his account about the occurrence for the first time after nine years, especially when he does not even say in Court that he had given a similar account in the written report. 7. Now to proceed to examine evidence of rest of the witnesses. 7. Now to proceed to examine evidence of rest of the witnesses. As mentioned earlier PW 1 (Ram Pravesh Choudhary) PW 2 (Mahendra Yadav) PW 5 (Kamal Deo Yadav) denied having personal knowledge of the occurrence and were declared hostile. Their attention was drawn to the earlier statements which is worthless since the Investigating Officer has not been examined 8. PW 4 (Shailendra Yadav) son of PW5 Kamaldeo Yadav stated that on the date of occurrence he heard hulla and sound of firing at which he went to the door of Nathun Yadav and saw Nathun Yadav and Raja Yadav injured. There was a gunshot injury on the neck of deceased Nadul Yadav. He also saw Appellant, Mithilesh Yadav, with a pistol, Sunaina Devi w/o Appellant with a Kuddal, Sakendra Yadav with lathi and Madan Yadav with Khanti. Sunaina Devi was breaking the Naad of Nathun Yadav. After the assault, the accused persons ran away. He further stated that the deceased was sent for treatment to Patna where he later died. In cross-examination, he stated that he reached the place of occurrence within ten minutes after it had taken place and had gone there on a Hulla as also that he had seen Sunaina Devi with Kuddal and Appellant, Mithilesh Yadav, running away with a pistol. He described the place of occurrence as a place on the North- of which was house of Raman Yadav, South- Janeshwar Yadav, East- house of Kamaldeo Yadav (PW 5), West- House of Appellant Mithilesh Yadav. In cross examination he admitted that in an earlier trial he had stated in Court that he did not have any knowledge about the occurrence. He explains that he had done so because accused Sakendar had not fired. He further stated that there was land dispute between the parties because the Appellant, Mithlesh, had grabbed the land of the deceased which he had got executed and could produce such document (which was not done). In cross examination he stated that he had given his statement to the police and he asserted that earlier he had said that he had seen the Appellant firing. I, thus, find that he has merely stated about the presence of injured and the Accused at the place of occurrence when he reached there along with the entire village on hearing sound of firing. I, thus, find that he has merely stated about the presence of injured and the Accused at the place of occurrence when he reached there along with the entire village on hearing sound of firing. In view of his earlier statement, also the one in Court, I find that he has no respect for truth since he himself admits that in an earlier trial he had stated that he had no personal knowledge of the occurrence but deposes otherwise in the present trial. Incidentally certified copies of the Judgment of the earlier trial and his deposition have been exhibited without objection by the Defence as Ext. A and B. 9. PW 6 (Raja Yadav) is the brother of the Informant, who stated that on the date of occurrence in the morning Sunaina Devi started to dig a ditch which was objected to, by him. So, she assaulted him on his hand. When the deceased came there, the Appellant fired at his neck on account of which he was injured. Nathun Yadav, the Informant was assaulted with lathi where after the accused ran away. He stated that after the occurrence several villagers had gathered and it was at his door that the occurrence had taken place. He stated that deceased died five days after the occurrence and no cartridge was recovered from his body. In cross examination his attention was drawn to the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that he had earlier not stated Sunaina Devi had assaulted him on his left hand, had said that Appellant Mithlesh had fired which had crossed the deceased and not said that accused Sakendar had assaulted Nathun (PW 3) with Khanti, lathi. He described the place of occurrence as being the land on the west of which was Raman Yadav, east- Jadu Mahto, north- Chamru Yadav and south-Accused Sakendra Yadav (brother of Appellant). He stated that he had also remained in the hospital for about five days. We, thus, find there are serious contradictions in his narration on the manner of occurrence in Court which material could not be brought on record on account of non production of the Investigating Officer. 10. He stated that he had also remained in the hospital for about five days. We, thus, find there are serious contradictions in his narration on the manner of occurrence in Court which material could not be brought on record on account of non production of the Investigating Officer. 10. The next material witness who happens to be the daughter of informant and niece of the deceased i.e. PW 7 (Kanti Devi) who stated that the deceased was her uncle and on the date of occurrence in the morning she saw Sunaina Devi w/o Appellant altercating with PW6, Raja Yadav, (her uncle) and also assaulting him. When Nadlu Yadav (deceased) and the Informant PW 3 reached, the Appellant came out of the house and fired at Nadlu which hit him on the neck and he fell down. Accused Sakendra and Madan are said to have assaulted her father Nathun (PW 3) with lathi whereafter they ran away. The deceased was removed to various hospitals before his death In cross examination, she described a changed place of occurrence as being a place north of which was house of Chamru Gope, South- Samundar Gope, East- Jadu Gope and West- house of Ram Kishun Gope. She further stated that number of persons had gathered there and Sunaina Devi was making the ditch with small kudaal which had led to altercation between PW 6 (Raja Yadav) and Sunaina Devi. To intervene, Nadlu and Nathun (PW 3) had come because an altercation was going on and the Appellant had fired from more than 10 yards i.e. 30 feet and the injured were allegedly treated at the hospital. She also stated the deceased had died five days later during treatment. It was suggested to her that, in fact, place of occurrence was Gair Majarua land which was in possession of Appellant Mithlesh and that firing had taken place between both the parties in course of which it was the firing of her cousin Birendra Yadav, which had hit the deceased. 11. The last prosecution evidence is that of PW 8 (Dr. Arbind Prasad), who identifies the handwriting of Dr Ashok Kumar Yadav, who had prepared the Post Mortem Examination Report, and on his identification the document was marked Ext 1. In cross examination he stated the Post mortem Report was not prepared in his presence nor did he know the facts. The last prosecution evidence is that of PW 8 (Dr. Arbind Prasad), who identifies the handwriting of Dr Ashok Kumar Yadav, who had prepared the Post Mortem Examination Report, and on his identification the document was marked Ext 1. In cross examination he stated the Post mortem Report was not prepared in his presence nor did he know the facts. It is noteworthy that this witness did not reproduce the contents of the postmortem report in Court so we have to consider as to whether despite not having done so his statement on such opinion is substantive evidence. 12. We find procedural law i.e. Section 294 Cr. P. C. waives formal proof of certain documents which reads as follows: “294. No formal proof of certain documents.--(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” To understand its import, we must be clear that documents, no matter in what form, contains two parts, one the physical form and the other its contents. There can be no dispute that formal proof of documents, genuineness of which is not challenged i.e. the physical form can be ignored under certain circumstances but for the second part i.e. contents of the document one will have go by the rules of the Evidence Act. For this let us turn to the scheme of Evidence Act. 13. Relevant Interpretation clauses in Section 3 are reproduced below the relevance of which also I will attempt to explain: “Fact”. —“Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. 13. Relevant Interpretation clauses in Section 3 are reproduced below the relevance of which also I will attempt to explain: “Fact”. —“Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. [Underlining Mine] (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. “Facts in issue”. —The expression “facts in issue” means and includes— any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, nonexistence, nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. Explanation.— Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue, is a fact in issue. Illustrations A is accused of the murder of B. At his trial the following facts may be in issue:— That A caused B's death; That A intended to cause B's death; That A had received grave and sudden provocation from B; That A at the time of doing the act which caused B's death, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature. “Document”. —“Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing is a document; Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document. Illustrations A writing is a document; Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document. “Evidence”.— “ Evidence” means and includes— (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court], such documents are called documentary evidence. 14. In this case, the 'fact in issue' is the Appellant caused the death of Nadlu Yadav for which the Prosecution was to primarily conclusively prove the following; (i) The complicity of the Appellant in the manner it seeks to prove, (ii) Opinion that death of the deceased was by means stated by Prosecution. Both these are questions of fact, including the opinion which is defined 'Fact' in clause (d) of Section 3 and have to be proved by way of 'Evidence' which could be by two modes i.e. oral or/ and documentary; In the instant case, we find the Prosecution to prove the manner of occurrence by means of Oral Evidence has produced four eye witnesses i.e. PW 4/5/6/7; And to prove the opinion on the cause of death of one Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, who had prepared the Post Mortem Report, examined PW 8, who proved it as Ext. 1 15. Question suggested and now framed is whether without PW 8 reproducing the contents in Court it can be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the factum and cause of death as per the law of evidence. 16. To seek an answer firstly, let us see what Section 59 Evidence Act which explains what can be proved by oral evidence says. “59. Proof of facts by oral evidence.— All facts, except the [contents of documents or electronic records], may be proved by oral evidence.” According to me, Section 59 cannot be interpreted to mean that in case of contents of a document, oral evidence in its regard is to be dispensed with. All that it says is that one cannot give only oral evidence in respect to the contents of a document. Meaning thereby a Party has to give proof of the contents by way of proving the document either by primary or secondary evidence. All that it says is that one cannot give only oral evidence in respect to the contents of a document. Meaning thereby a Party has to give proof of the contents by way of proving the document either by primary or secondary evidence. This will be clear when one reads Section 60, which, among other things, says, that oral evidence has to be direct and includes opinion of an expert described under Section 45 Evidence Act. Portion of Section 60 relevant for our purpose is quoted below: 60. Oral evidence must be direct.--- Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say--- if it…......; if it………..; if it.........; if it refers to an opinion or to the ground on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who hold that opinion on these grounds; Provided that......; Provided also that........; 17. Had Section 59 intended dispensing with oral evidence in case of contents of a document there would be no need to include the requirement of the expert holding a certain opinion to give oral evidence. These Sections, in my opinion, have further to be read in conjunction with the scheme of a criminal trial where all materials, including the opinion of an expert is collected during investigation and fall in the category of statements i.e. Section 161 Cr. P. C. forming a part of charge-sheet submitted in terms of Section 173(5) (a) Cr. P. C. and can be used for limited purpose. 18. Before I proceed, I must explain that there could be two scenarios if the expert himself is not examined; (i) A formal witness comes to the Court and reproduces the contents of the Document which is thereafter marked Exhibit. (ii) A formal witness appears in Court, waves the document without speaking a word of its contents, and gets it marked Exhibit. 19. Question is what is the effect of the two scenarios. In both situations, it would be in blatant violation of Section 60 which enjoins that in case of an expert it is the person holding the opinion who must orally depose in Court. The reason is obviously because an opinion is, inconclusive in nature, and is open to challenge and non examination of the Expert would cause prejudice to the other Party because such opportunity was not given. The reason is obviously because an opinion is, inconclusive in nature, and is open to challenge and non examination of the Expert would cause prejudice to the other Party because such opportunity was not given. Moreover, an opinion is a question of fact, in terms of Section 3 Evidence Act describing 'Fact' as said earlier, which has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases. In the second scenario, apart from the above, applying the general rule of evidence, that only that evidence which is given in court is substantive evidence [see AIR 1981 SC 2085 (Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Invest Import)] such statement would be a useless piece of material and cannot be termed 'Evidence'. It would be inadmissible, also hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. An earlier statement to be read in evidence have to firstly qualify as substantive evidence for it to be worthy of corroboration or contradiction. 20. To explain my point, let us imagine a hypothetical Criminal Trial in which the Informant, Magistrate holding Test Identification Parade, one witness after another come to Court and prove the fard-e-bayan/ T.I. Chart/Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. respectively which are duly marked exhibits without speaking a single word in support of the occurrence, or speak merely of preparation of a document but not its contents. Can it be said their statements are admissible in law and contents of documents automatically proved and thus the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of such deposition and documents? Obviously not, because such documents by themselves are not substantive evidence. 21. In the instant case as mentioned above, we find PW 8 has merely proved the handwriting of Dr Ashok Kumar Yadav but does not reproduce the contents and on the contrary says he did not know the facts. In such circumstances, in view of the above discussion, his statement has to be rejected as inadmissible. 22. Now to discuss the Defence evidence. I find it has examined Mithu Yadav, DW 1, who stated that he knew the deceased and, in fact, Birendra Yadav had fired at Nadlu Yadav, whereas, Appellant was innocent. A case had been instituted against Birendra Yadav for keeping arms. However, since he was never examined by the police, his evidence is of no consequence. 23. I find it has examined Mithu Yadav, DW 1, who stated that he knew the deceased and, in fact, Birendra Yadav had fired at Nadlu Yadav, whereas, Appellant was innocent. A case had been instituted against Birendra Yadav for keeping arms. However, since he was never examined by the police, his evidence is of no consequence. 23. I find from the statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he by way of explanation stated that Birendra Yadav, a family member of the deceased, had fired at him but he ducked. It was the bullet which had been aimed at him that had hit and killed the deceased. 24. Thus, on going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that whereas PW 1 (Ram Pravesh Choudhary), PW 2 (Mahendra Yadav), PW 5 (Kamal Deo Yadav), who were independent witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and the case finds support from the evidence of PW 3 (Nathun Yadav), PW 6 (Raja Yadav) and PW 7 (Kanti Devi), who belong to the same family and hence come in the category of being interested witnesses whose evidence will have to be received with caution, and PW 4 (Shailendra Yadav). The consistent story of the prosecution is that PW 3 and PW 6 were also assaulted and they had sustained injuries on account of which PW 6 had remained in the hospital for five days but there is no supporting medical report. In my opinion, in such circumstances, these two witnesses have thus resultantly failed to conclusively prove their presence at the place of occurrence. Not only that, their assault was an intrinsic part of the prosecution story so when they failed to produce medical reports, I would be inclined to hold that the Prosecution has not been able to prove a substantial part of the prosecution case. 25. As for PW 4, I find he has given a confusing statement on reading of which it is difficult to place absolute reliance on his statement. In the same breath, he says he saw the occurrence and then that he had come to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing and saw the injured and the accused with various arms. In the same breath, he says he saw the occurrence and then that he had come to the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing and saw the injured and the accused with various arms. Also, in cross-examination, he conceded that in the split up trial he had stated that he did not have any knowledge about the occurrence. 26. So we are left with the sole evidence of PW 7, who is niece of the deceased. She had also supported the other witnesses about assault on PW 3 and PW 6 but in the circumstance mentioned above, I have already held that an adverse inference has to be necessarily drawn against the prosecution for non production of medical reports. I also find that she has stated that a number of covillagers had gathered at the place of occurrence but there is no independent support on her presence. In fact, even her family members i.e. PW 3 and PW 6 do not confirm her presence. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to place any reliance on her statement to maintain the conviction of the Appellant. 27. One also notices that witnesses, who have tried to describe the place have given changed descriptions. Whereas Informant has stated that the place of occurrence was bounded by land of Chamru Gope in north, south a ditch, on east by Jadu Maho and west of his own, PW 4 (Shailenda Yadav), said it was at a place North of which was house of Raman Yadav, South- Janeshwar Yadav, East- house of Kamaldeo Yadav, West- House of Appellant. PW 6 (Raja Yadav) has stated that the place of occurrence was bounded on the west Raman Yadav, east- Jadu Mahto, north-Chamru Yadav and south-Samandar Yadav (i.e. family of the accused). PW 7 (Kanti Kumari), daughter of the Informant, has stated that place of occurrence was bounded on the north of house of Chamru Gope, south- Samundar Gope, east- Jadu Gope and west- house of Ram Kishun Gope. On consideration of evidence of the four material eyewitnesses on this issue, I find there is no conformity and hence the place of occurrence, in my opinion, has also not been successfully proved by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer alone could have reconciled the issue but the prosecution has failed to produce him. 28. On consideration of evidence of the four material eyewitnesses on this issue, I find there is no conformity and hence the place of occurrence, in my opinion, has also not been successfully proved by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer alone could have reconciled the issue but the prosecution has failed to produce him. 28. I also find that there is some indication by way of evidence of PW4 and 6 that, in fact, the occurrence had taken place on an area adjacent to the house of the Appellant. In such a situation, in my opinion, non examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the Appellant because had he fixed the place of occurrence this Court could have considered as to whether Appellant had acted in right of private defence of property which to some extent was his plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Also because the Informant himself stated that an altercation and assault had taken place between both the parties and thus the possibility of the Appellant, firing from a distance of 30 feet, and, not repeating the same, on sudden and extreme provocation, could not be ruled out. 29. Thus to sum up, in my opinion, in continuation of the above discussion, when the Prosecution has not brought the earliest version on record, not proved the cause of death, nor the place of occurrence, not examined the Investigating Officer causing prejudice to the Appellant and the eyewitness accounts being highly unreliable, in my opinion, the Appellant deserves to be acquitted. 30. In the result, appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is hereby set aside. Appeal allowed. In view of the difference of opinion, let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice.