A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub section 3 provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons like the informant, the same had been duly proved. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse and test the credit worthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded. However, if the evidence was not credit-worthy and worthy of reliance, the accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean acquittal. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye witnesses to the account, to have fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony. The private respondents in all the three appeals who stand convicted under the order of the Trial Court, would surrender within six weeks before the Trial Court and it would be open for them to apply for suspension of sentence.