15. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 is basically hearsay evidence. The evidence of PW-6 does not give any indication of the involvement of the appellants in the death of the deceased and in fact only points towards the deceased having committed suicide. Though it is surprising that the appellants did not inform the relatives of the deceased with regard to the death of the deceased and the fact that the cremation took place within two hours of the death of the deceased, is suspicious, no finding can be made on the basis of presumptions or suspicious. Further, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the deceased was having any living parents or other relatives besides PW-1. There is nothing in the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) to show that he had made any attempt to ascertain whether the deceased was having any living parents or other relatives besides PW-1. As stated earlier, though the circumstances in cremating the dead body at such short notice is suspicious, we cannot decide this case on the basis of suspicion and speculation. Further, there is nothing to show that the testimony of PW-6 is not reliable. Though PW-6 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC had stated that he came to the place of occurrence after hearing of the death of the deceased and that the villagers were absent at the time of cremation of the dead body, PW-6 has not been confronted with the contents of his statement allegedly made under Section 161 Cr.PC. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a witness may be crossexamined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. In this respect, the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Mishra & Anr. –vs- State of
