( 1 ) THAT brings us to the second contention. The complaint mark B contains the version attributed to the appellant. According to this version the deceased and the appellant were not on speaking terms on account of a false allegation about the encroachment over the land of the deceased by the accused. On the day of the incident the deceased came to the grazing ground near the appellant and challenged the appellant and the child accused Vagha Lakhman. This challenge was immediately followed by throwing of a stone at the appellant which struck his left knee. The appellant thereupon sat down and in the meanwhile the deceased came near him and aimed a blow at the appellant with his stick. The appellant warded off this blow by outstretching his left hand with the result that the stick struck on the left knee. Thereafter the appellant struck the deceased with his axe. This complaint if admitted in evidence would give out appellants version calling for consideration of the question of self-defence; and on account of the objection taken on behalf of the prosecution as to the admissibility of this complaint in view of the bar created by sec. 162 of the Code the question about admissibility has to be decided in this case. We must first look at the relevant evidence as to the circumstances in which this complaint came to be recorded. Evidently the appellant was not arrested in the course of investigation by P. S. I. Raijada who happened to hand over investigation to S. D. P. O. Mahapatra at 1-00 p. m. when the latter arrived at the scene. Mahapatra then proceeded further with the investigation recorded a couple of statements and then arrested the appellant. The weapon with the appellant accused was attached under a Panchnama Exh. 19 which went on from 2-15 p. m. to 2-45 p. m. Then as per the evidence of the S. D. P. O the appellant complained to him about beating by the deceased and therefore he directed the P. S. I. to record appellants complaint. In the course of cross-examination the witness stated that after his taking over the investigation he had called the appellant and had questioned him and thereafter he was arrested. P. S. I. Raijada P. W. 10 stated in his evidence that after having handed over the investigation to Mahapatra he recorded the complaint of the appellant at 5-00 p. m at the instance of Mahapatra. The complaint contents of which have been narrated above would show that the only person against whom it was given was the deceased. There was no question of taking any action upon this complaint because the offender mentioned in that complaint was dead. No investigation therefore could proceed upon that complaint. However it was recorded as a complaint; and it is in this context that we have to decide upon the controversy which has been raised before us. Secs. 154 161 and 162 of the Code are relevant in this connection. The relevant portions thereof may now be reproduced:"154 Information in cognizable causes :- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant: and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to by kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. . . . . . . . . . "161 Examination of witnesses by police :- (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter or any police officer not below such rank as she State Government may by general or special order prescribe in this behalf acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such ease put to him by such officer other than