ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Seven persons, namely, Chhotan Kumhar, Charan Kumhar, Mahendra Kumhar, Chamara Kumhar, Sohan Kumhar, Mohan Kumhar and Gambhir Kumhar were named by the informant as assailants of his father. His fardbeyan was recorded on 21st October, 1979 at about 6:00 p.m. at the police station, on the basis of which Tamar P.S. Case No. 08 (10)/1979 was registered against the accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against them and they have faced the trial on the charge under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It has come on record that the appellants, namely, Chhotan Kumhar, Chamara Kumhar and Gambhir Kumhar have passed away during pendency of this criminal appeal and, accordingly, this criminal appeal qua the appellant no. 1- Chhotan Kumar, the appellant no. 4- Chamara Kumhar and the appellant no. 7- Gambhir Kumhar stands abated. 3. The records of S.T. No. 85 of 1982/T.R. No. 18 of 1985 reveal a sordid state of affairs during the sessions trial. In the charge-sheet seven witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons, however, only two of them have been examined during the trial. Non-bailable warrants were issued against Dr. R.S.Prasad who has conducted the post-mortem examination and Mr. Chote Lal Paswan who was the investigating officer but after sending notice to the Superintendent of Police no further step was taken by the court for production of the prosecution witnesses. The investigating officer and the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem examination were not examined during the trial and why the non-bailable warrants of arrest were not executed is not reflected in the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Apparently, the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor and the learned Sessions Judge as well have failed to discharge their duty during the trial in S.T. Case No. 85 of 1982. 5. In “Ram Chandra Vs. State of Haryana” reported in AIR 1981 SC 1036 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and mere recording machine. In “T.C. Mathai Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 614 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, thus: “8. In “T.C. Mathai Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 614 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, thus: “8. The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function .The primary duty of a criminal court is to administer criminal justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned ----------.” 6. It is unbelievable that a murder trial in which seven persons have faced the trial on the charge of forming unlawful assembly and committing murder of Laloo Hazam in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly has concluded after examining only two witnesses and it is really shocking that the witnesses were examined about twenty years after the occurrence. The investigating officer has failed to produce the witnesses and he was also not examined during the trial. In “Stephen Senevirante Vs. The King” reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 289, Their Lordships have affirmed the view taken by Jenkins, C.J. in “Ram Ranjan Roy Vs. Emperor” reported in (1915) ILR 42 Cal 545; that it is the duty of the prosecution to examine all material witnesses. The investigating officer must remain present during the trial and it is his duty to keep the witnesses present during the trial on the date when the case is fixed for evidence has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in “Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (2002)1 SCC 655 , thus: 9. “----------------It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to issue summons to the investigating officer if he failed to remain present at the time of trial of the case. The presence of investigating officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If there is failure on the part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty of the court to take appropriate action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants, as the case may be. It should be well understood that the prosecution cannot be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crime cannot be left in a lurch.” 7. The sister of the informant is the sole eye-witness and no other evidence except that the informant says that his sister has informed him about the occurrence has been produced by the prosecution. It should be well understood that the prosecution cannot be frustrated by such methods and victims of the crime cannot be left in a lurch.” 7. The sister of the informant is the sole eye-witness and no other evidence except that the informant says that his sister has informed him about the occurrence has been produced by the prosecution. But, it is not necessary that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a solitary eye-witness the court must insist on corroboration rather the law is that if testimony of a solitary witness is found cogent, reliable and trustworthy, conviction of the accused can be recorded on his evidence. However, in “Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and others Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in (2006)11 SCC 323 , the Supreme Court has cautioned that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a single witness the court must satisfy itself that testimony of such witness is of such sterling quality that it leaves no doubt about the complicity and involvement of the accused in the crime. 8. The informant of this case who is son of the deceased has stated in his fardbeyan that in the after-noon of 21.10.1979 his son and the younger sister came to him and informed him about the occurrence. At that time he was grazing cattle near a jungle on the banks of a river. They were weeping. They told him that the accused persons have assaulted his father, cousin and uncle. He came to his house and found that his father has died but he was not sure whether Govind Hazam has died by that time. He has stated that there was a land dispute between him and Gambhir Kumhar, the accused. In the court he has reiterated his statement recorded in the fardbeyan. His sister who is an eye-witness has claimed that she has seen the accused persons assaulting her father, uncle and cousin. In her cross-examination she has stated that it was Sohrai festival on 21.10.1979 and everyone was drunk on that date. She has stated that around the place of occurrence co-villagers Sohan, Mohan and Chhotan are residing. She has also stated about assault on Kartik but the prosecution is completely silent on this point. In her cross-examination she has stated that it was Sohrai festival on 21.10.1979 and everyone was drunk on that date. She has stated that around the place of occurrence co-villagers Sohan, Mohan and Chhotan are residing. She has also stated about assault on Kartik but the prosecution is completely silent on this point. She has stated that when Kartik was assaulted Gambhir, Mohan and Sohan tried to save him, but these witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and son of the informant, who according to the prosecution is an eye-witness, has not been examined during the trial. It is also important to notice that according to the informant both sides have committed marpit and she has admitted enmity between the parties. 9. From the evidence of PW-2 it is apparent that the prosecution has suppressed the real version of the occurrence and no other material which could have connected the appellants with the crime has been produced during the trial. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has held that non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution. Just after reproducing testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused persons are guilty and the charge under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code has been proved by the prosecution. A murder trial is not like a fairy tale and a judgment should not only record the conclusions there must be reasons recorded by the trial Judge for arriving at such conclusions [refers, “The State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Karam Singh” reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277 ]. In this context, we may refer to clause (b) of sub-section (1) to section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under: “(b) Shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.” 11. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to adhere to the statutory requirements under section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. During the trial the fardbeyan, First Information Report, inquest report and post-mortem report were not tendered in evidence and therefore it is not possible to find out the nature of injuries caused to the deceased persons. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to adhere to the statutory requirements under section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. During the trial the fardbeyan, First Information Report, inquest report and post-mortem report were not tendered in evidence and therefore it is not possible to find out the nature of injuries caused to the deceased persons. It is also not possible to see whether the injuries caused to Laloo Hazam, Jagatpal Hazam and Govindo Hazam could have been caused by the weapons allegedly held by the accused persons. In absence of the doctor or any other medical officer examined under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the cause of death has not been proved. 13. Under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 opinions of the experts are relevant. Chapter IV of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with oral evidence. Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that all facts except (content of documents or electronic records), may be proved by oral evidence. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that contents of a document may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. A document in original if produced during the trial is a primary evidence, however, contents of a document unless the maker is examined cannot be read in evidence. In terms of section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a post-mortem report needs to be proved by the doctor who has conducted the examination or a person who is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in the court on behalf of the doctor. In “Munna Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (2005)12 SCC 209, finding that the post-mortem report was not proved in terms of section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court has observed that the appellant was entitled for the benefit of doubt. It has been held that the prosecution should have produced the best evidence by proving the post-mortem report by examining the doctor or any other person acquainted with the hand-writing of the doctor who had prepared post-mortem report. 14. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish participation of the surviving appellants in the occurrence and, accordingly, their conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 15. 14. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish participation of the surviving appellants in the occurrence and, accordingly, their conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 15. The surviving appellants, namely, Charan Kumhar, Mahendra Kumhar, Sohan Kumhar and Mohan Kumhar are acquitted of the criminal charges framed against them in S.T. Case No. 85 of 1982. 16. The appellants, above-named, are on bail and therefore they shall stand discharged of the liability of the bail bonds furnished by them. 17. In the result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 192 of 2001 is allowed. 18. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Miss. Saumya Pandey, the learned Amicus. 19. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.