report also shows that on the basis of information given by father of appellant, A.D. was given. In the A.D. report, it is mentioned that it was informed that only the deceased and the appellant had gone on motorcycle and they were returning on motorcycle at the relevant time. In view of the evidence of Avahad (PW 1), the evidence of Dr. Dolare (PW 5) and the record, inference is easy that only the appellant was in the company of deceased at the relevant time. On the basis of the same evidence inference is easy that the aforesaid information was supplied by the appellant and due to that Police Patil gave the report of aforesaid nature. This circumstance is relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act. In view of the provision of section 6 of the Evidence Act, it is not possible to challenge the aforesaid evidence by contending that it is hearsay in nature and it is the information which all the persons received immediately after the incident. It is also of the nature of admission as provided in section 17 of Evidence Act of the appellant that he was in the company of the deceased.
