HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 322 of 1993 Decided on: 28.3.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Bhagat Ram. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For appellant: Mr.P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral): Heard and gone through the record. State has appealed against the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC. PW-1 Roop Ram lodged a report, Ext.PW-2/A, with the police that on that very day, he had gone to see a fair at a place called Tikkar, where respondent Bhagat Ram quarreled with him without any rhyme or reason and then stabbed him with a knife and inflicted several injuries. On the basis of the said information, case was formally registered vide FIR Ext.PW-8/A. The _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. injured was got medically examined at IGMC, Shimla from PW-16 Dr. A.Banerjee, who found as many as 9 injuries on his person, some of which were on the abdomen and chest and he opined that the injuries on the abdomen and the chest were dangerous to life. The police investigated the matter further and sent up the respondent for trial. At the end of the trial, Sessions Court acquitted the respondent, vide judgment dated 15.3.1993, which has been assailed in the present appeal. We have been taken through the entire evidence. Also, we have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned defence counsel. The injured (Roop Ram) who appeared as PW-1, himself did not support the prosecution story. He stated that when he was passing through the forest, on his way back home, someone threw a stone at him which hit him on his head as a result of which he became unconscious and thereafter, a man with muffled face appeared and stabbed him in the chest and the abdomen. He did not name the respondent as the person who caused the injuries. The prosecution, for the reasons best know to it, did not seek leave of the court to cross examine him, despite the fact he did not stick to the initial version that he was stabbed by the respondent at the site of the village fair. The Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the respondent is named in the FIR, which was lodged by PW-1. Argument has been noticed only to be rejected. It is a well settled proposition of law that FIR is not a piece of substantive evidence, but only corroborative evidence. Substantive evidence, in the present case, is the statement of PW-1 Roop Ram, the injured. He does not say that he was assaulted by the respondent. Therefore, the FIR is of no use in linking the respondent with the commission of the crime or establishing the identity of the respondent, as the man with muffled face, who assaulted Roop Ram PW-1. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge. March 28, 2008. (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), Judge.