IMPORTANT POINT
First Information Report even if lodged by an eye witness cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for corroboration or contradiction purposes.

JUDGMENT

R.S. Garg, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 (Mannu and others v. State of Chhattisgarh). Criminal Appeal No. 254/2001 (Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh) and Criminal Appeal No. 277/2001 (Mannu v. State of Chhattisgarh).

2. All the appellants well described in Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-2-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 188/2000 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Shri A.K. Samantre) convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life respectively and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 302 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six month have filed these appeals.

3. In all ten persons were prosecuted in relation to aforesaid offences. Criminal Appeal No. 253/2001 was filed by Shri Yashwant Tiwari. Advocate on 8-3-2001 for and on behalf of all the accused. Criminal Appeal No. 254/2001 was filed by Smt. Kiran Jain, Advocate and her associates on 7-3-2001 for and on behalf of accused Shankar. Criminal Appeal No. 277/ 2001 was filed by Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate, through Shri Utkarsh Verma, Advocate on 15-3-2001 for and on behalf of accused Mannu. As all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, these are being finally disposed of by this judgment.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 1-2-2000 at about 8.30 p.m., a message was received at police station-Mohan Nagar that some persons of the said locality had caused injuries to one man and left him at the spot in the injured condition. After receiving the information, Hemlal, Constable No. 971 went to the spot with the help and assistance of Rajendra Kumar Constable No. 672. He took the man to the hospital. After examining the person. Dr. A. P. Sawant declared him dead. Sub Inspector J.S. Madhavi after receiving the information from Rajendra Kumar registered an inquest and thereafter registered the same at the police station as the inquest No. 6/2000. Said J.S. Madhavi went to the hospital summoned the witnesses and prepared the panchnama of the dead body. After making the proper investigation and receiving certain information from the witnesses the first information report was registered by said J.S. Madhavi at Ex. P/15. During the course of investigation certain memorandums of the accused persons were recorded and at the instance of the accused persons certain articles were discovered. The articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for their report. The report was received by the police. The body of the deceased was identified by Tikaram and Ashok. A spot map was prepared by T.S. Verma, Patwari in presence of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation armed with the circumstantial evidence and the statements of Tirohit, Chouhan Padum Bahadur and others the prosecution agency filed the challan against the accused persons. As the accused denied commission of offence they were put to trial. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and giving proper opportunity of the defence to the accused persons the learned trial court heard the accused persons through their counsel, recorded a finding in favour of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced each of the appellants as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said findings and sentences, the appellants have come to this Court.

5. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the court below is not bad on facts but shows absolute non-application of mind, according to him, in absence of any material evidence, the court below in its zeal to convict the appellants has relied upon the contents of the first information report, which otherwise was inadmissible in evidence. He submits that even if the first information report is admissib