( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case. further observed :]

( 2 ) THE complaint filed by Radhaben is admitted in evidence at Exh. 12 in the case. Radhaben in her examination-in-chief stated that on way to Cottage Hospital she had gone to Dahod Rural Police Station where she was questioned about the incident and thereafter her thumb-impression was obtained on complaint. The fact that officer incharge of police station who reduced into writing the information given by Radhaben, is not examined by the prosecution as one of the witnesses is not in dispute. Under the circumstances, the question arises as to whether complaint produced by Radhaben can be received in evidence ? A complaint given by a person or information given by a person under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not by itself become evidence automatically. It can go in as evidence only to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the maker of it. It would be admissible in evidence under Sec. 157 of the Cri. Pro. Code. As Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal procedure provides that the information if given orally shall be reduced to writing. provisions of Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act are attracted. This section provides that when any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such matters, except document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is only that complaint which is reduced to writing under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that can be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker of it. Even if whole complaint is entered into prescribed book, that would not be complaint. Entries in the book prescribed under Sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be relevant under Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. But, these entries have to be proved. Report made to a Magistrate as provided in Sec. 157 of the Code of Criminal procedure may be a public document, but being a report is not relevant under Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. Where a document is written by one person and signed by another, hand-writings of the former and the signature of the latter have both to be proved in view of Sec. 67 of the Evidence Act. As prosecution has not examined police officer incharge of Dahod Police Station who had reduced the information given by Radhaben to writing, we are of the view that the so-called complaint given by Bai Radha is not proved as required by Sec. 67 of the Act and, therefore, it was not admissible in evidence. The fact that defence had used the complaint for contradicting its maker, would not make the complaint admissible in evidence. As the complaint was not admissible in evidence, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned Judge in concluding that evidence of Bai Radha is materially corroborated by her complaint. As the complaint filed by Radhaben is not admissible in evidence, the Court will have to proceed on the footing that there is absence of First Information Report. The absence of First Information Report may cast a cloud of suspicion and tend to weaken the prosecution case in given facts. However, there is no rule that in absence of First Information Report, the prosecution case must be rejected in toto or that it must be thrown over-board. The reason is that First Information Report is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used either for corroborating or contradicting the maker of it. The Court has to decide the question whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt or not with reference to substantive evidence led before the Court. The substantive evidence in a criminal trial consists of deposition on oath of the witnesses who are subjected to cross-examination at the hands of experts. Once the Court finds that the substantive evidence led befo