JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 8.6.2004 passed by the learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Darrang, Magaldoi in Sessions Case No. 82(DMFT)/2002, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced. 2. We have heard Mr. P Kataki, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. On 23.10.2000 Md. Joynal Abedin lodged a written FIR Ext. 2 stating, inter alia, that on the previous night around 12 midnight some miscreants entered into the house of co-villager Abdul Mazid and after brutally killing him took away the dead body. Although the villagers gave a chase they could not trace the dead body. The two widows of the deceased have informed the villagers that they could recognize the miscreants. 4. Pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the police, the five accused appellants were tried by the ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi and during trial as many as nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the court examined one witness. The defence examined three witnesses. The trial court convicted all the five accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, in default to further imprisonment for six months. The accused persons were also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to further imprisonment for three months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and hence the present appeal. 5. Mustt. Amela Khatoon PW 2 and Mustt Nasimon Nessa PW 3 are the two widows of the deceased and both of them were living together along with their husband deceased Abdul Mazid. The deceased Abdul Mazid had a land dispute with the accused persons who are members of same family and the deceased was also threatened by the accused persons prior to the incident. On the fateful night, PW 3 Mustt. Nasimon Nessa was with her husband in another room along with a one year old infant whereas the other wife Amela Khatoon was sleeping in the adjacent room. According to PW 3 around midnight the accused persons entered into their house by forcibly opening the front door. On the fateful night, PW 3 Mustt. Nasimon Nessa was with her husband in another room along with a one year old infant whereas the other wife Amela Khatoon was sleeping in the adjacent room. According to PW 3 around midnight the accused persons entered into their house by forcibly opening the front door. On hearing the sounds of breaking of the door, her husband stood up when the five accused persons entered into the room and assaulted him. She raised alarm whereupon she was asked to keep silent. The accused persons forcibly dragged her husband out and when PW 3 tried to intervene, a blow was also aimed at her but it landed on a bamboo post. Although her husband died inside the room itself they continued to assault him and dragged away the body. The other wife also came out whereupon she was also assaulted. According to PW 3 an oil lamp was burning inside their room and in the said light she recognized all the five accused persons. She further deposed that there were about twenty more persons who were standing outside the house. 6. The other widow PW 2 Amela Khatoon has deposed that on hearing screams from her husband's room, she got up and while she tried to come out from her room the two accused appellants Abdul Hai and Khamin Ali stood before her and prevented her from coming out. She saw the accused persons assaulting her husband and dragged away his body and thereafter she fell down unconscious. Sekendar Ali PW 4 is the son of the deceased through PW 2. He was sleeping in the neighbouring house of his maternal uncle and on alarm being raised, he came out but when he was threatened with assault he hid himself and saw the accused persons dragging away his father. Thereafter, he saw accused Abdul Hai chopping his father's head and the torso was taken away. He too raised alarm whereupon the villagers camp and they followed the accused persons. They could see track marks upto the river but could not trace the body although the head was found lying on the road. 7. The informant Joynal Abedin PW 5, Sakman Ali PW 6 and Md. He too raised alarm whereupon the villagers camp and they followed the accused persons. They could see track marks upto the river but could not trace the body although the head was found lying on the road. 7. The informant Joynal Abedin PW 5, Sakman Ali PW 6 and Md. Abdul Hussain PW 7 are the three co-villagers who along with others arrived at the scene of occurrence soon after the incident and they were told about the assault by the accused persons and taking away of the body of Abdul Mazid. They followed the track which led to the river but the body could not be recovered on that night. It was recovered on the next day from the river and the inquest was conducted by the police. The relevant portion of the inquest reads as follows: The deceased was about 42 years old. The body is completely bare. The right hand is missing. The left hand is still thinly attached to the body. The body is badly mutilated by blows of sharp weapons. The body is severed at the waist line. The legs are separated from the body. 8. PW 1 is Dr. Apurba Kumar Pathak who held the autopsy over the dead body of Abdul Mazid and found as follows: A dead body of a male, beheaded, body swollen and partially decomposed, head is missing with multiple deep cut injuries on all over the body as follows: (1) Deep penetrating cut over abdomen exposing abdominal contents. (2) Multiple cut injury over chest, abdomen lower limbs and upper limbs. Rigor mortise absent. Thorax - thorax contents decomposed and lacerated. Abdominal contents lacerated and decomposed. Injuries are ante mortem in nature. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained. 9. Although PW 1 was cross examined as regards the identity of the deceased, we find that the dead body was recognized by the widows of the deceased and other relations including the son and there was no meaningful cross examination that the dead body recovered was not of deceased Abdul Mazid. 10. 9. Although PW 1 was cross examined as regards the identity of the deceased, we find that the dead body was recognized by the widows of the deceased and other relations including the son and there was no meaningful cross examination that the dead body recovered was not of deceased Abdul Mazid. 10. In view of the overwhelming oral and medical evidence on record, we, therefore, concur with the findings of the trial court that the incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place on the intervening night of 22nd/23rd of October, 2000 wherein the house of Abdul Mazid was vandalized and the said Abdul Mazid was assaulted and killed and his dead body was beheaded and thrown into the river. 11. So far the participation of the accused persons is concerned, the incident took place at night inside the house of Abdul Mazid and naturally the inmates of the house are the natural witnesses. PW 3 was with her husband at the relevant point of time and she has deposed that she could recognize all the five accused persons and the means of recognition was an oil lamp (chaki) which was burning inside the room. Considering the fact that the infant was also sleeping with the mother the burning of the lamp is not disputed, which is but natural. The villagers who are accustomed to the light of the 'chaki' can very well recognize the face of persons in that light and the accused persons in the present case were not strangers. They were the co-villagers and the deceased had a land dispute with them. On the other hand PW 2 was in the other room and she could recognize only two accused persons Abdul Hai and Khamin who stood before her. They lifted the body of her husband. The defence while cross examining this witness got a contradiction recorded that she had not named Abdul Hai and Khamin in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial court had also recorded the alleged contradiction but on perusal of the case dairy we find that the contradiction was wrongly recorded as the names of these two persons too occur in her statement before police. 12. 12. Sekendar Alt PW 4 has also named the accused persons and he has claimed that when he came out from his room accused Jalal Ali was waiting outside and he tried to assault him. A contradiction was suggested and recorded by the trial court but on perusal of the case diary we find that PW 4 had also named Jalal Ali in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the contradiction was wrongly recorded. 13. At this stage, we would like to emphasize on the duty of the trial court as regards the recording of contradictions under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Merely, because a contradiction is suggested to the witness by the defence at the time of cross examination it should not be mechanically recorded. The trial court should consult the case diary/relevant statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, record the contradiction through the Investigating Officer when the latter appears in the witness box. There is also corresponding duty on the part of the Public Prosecutor to remain vigilant and bring it to the notice of the court if such contradictions are wrongly put or suggested to the witnesses. Sometimes the language in which the sentence is recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. may defer from the one used by the witnesses during trial. However, it is not the language but the substance of the matter which is relevant. It has been observed in many cases that the trial court mechanically goes on recording whatever contradictions are suggested to the witnesses and thereafter the Investigating Officer is confronted with them in the very language in which it was recorded and in some cases the Investigating Officer who are not vigilant and if they find that the language of the sentence does not tally with the statement recorded by them they simply support the contradictions by stating that such statement is not available in the case dairy. A detailed guideline was given by this Court in the case of The State v. Md. Misir Ali. The procedure laid down by this Court in Md. A detailed guideline was given by this Court in the case of The State v. Md. Misir Ali. The procedure laid down by this Court in Md. Misir Ali (supra) are reproduced below: We also regret to note that the procedure to be followed in the case of proving the contradictions appearing in the statements made by prosecution witnesses to the police during investigation is not being followed by subordinate Courts as well as by the counsel appearing in criminal cases. We had occasion to point out the correct procedure more than once and it would be worth while restating it. It if is intended by an accused to contradict the evidence given by a prosecution witness at the trial, with a statement made by him before the police during the investigation, the correct thing to do is to draw the attention of the witness to that part of the contradictory statement, which he made before the police and question him whether he did in fact make that statement. If the witness admits having made the particular statement to the police, that admission will go into evidence and will be recorded as part of the evidence of the witness and can be relied on by the accused as establishing the contradiction. If on the other hand, the witness denies having made such a statement before the police, the particular portion of the statement recorded under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code should be provisionally marked for identification, and when the investigating officer who had actually recorded the statement in question comes into the witness box he should be questioned as to whether that particular statement had been made to him during the investigation, by the particular witness, and obviously after refreshing his memory from the Police Case Diary the investigating officer would make his answer in the affirmative. The answer of the investigating officer would prove the statement which is then exhibited in the case and will go into evidence, and may, thereafter, be relied on by the accused as a contradiction. This is the only correct procedure to be followed, which would be in conformity with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 14. The trial court has given detailed reasons for accepting the testimony of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 as true, reliable and cogent and the conviction of the accused appellants has been based on their testimony. This is the only correct procedure to be followed, which would be in conformity with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 14. The trial court has given detailed reasons for accepting the testimony of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 as true, reliable and cogent and the conviction of the accused appellants has been based on their testimony. We also find that the statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the defence has not been able to bring out any contradictions in their earlier statements to show that these witnesses have made out a false story. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the names of all the accused persons are not mentioned in the FIR and as such the accused persons are entitled to acquittal on that count alone. In support of his submissions the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi) 1975 CriLJ 1009. 16. The law in this regard was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Nallamsetty Yanadaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was observed that non-mentioning of the names of the accused persons in the FIR is not always fatal. In the present case, we find that the FIR was lodged by Joynal Abedin who is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and as such the evidence of the eyewitnesses, i.e., the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses, cannot be affected by the said omission. Moreover, we find that in the instant case it has been specifically mentioned in the FIR itself that the two widows of the deceased have recognized the assailants. In the above circumstances, we hold that non-mentioning of the names of the accused persons in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. 17. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is regarding the plea of alibi. The defence had examined three witnesses who have deposed that on the fateful evening there was a 'mehfil' in the house of the accused appellant Abdul Hai and they had participated in the said 'mehfil' which continued till 1 or 2 AM and as such the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence which is far away from the house of the accused was not possible. The trial court had considered the evidence of the three defence witnesses in detailed and held that all the three defence witnesses are not reliable and they have failed to establish the plea of alibi. 18. The law regarding the plea of alibi is more or less well settled in the case of Keshab Choudhury v. State of Assam wherein this Court held that the plea of alibi can be accepted only when it is shown that it was impossible for the accused to be present at the place where the crime was committed. The three defence witnesses have deposed about a particular incident although they are not the residents of that village and they have no idea about the date. They were telling about a particular date in their examination in chief but during cross examination they have admitted that they do not know about the date. 19. We have perused the evidence of the three witnesses examined by the defence and find that although they have stated about holding of a 'mehfil' in the house of Abdul Hai none of the accused persons have claimed anything like that in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have remained silent and have not spoken a single word about holding of a 'mehfil' in the house of Abdul Hai. The only statement of the accused Abdul Hai is that he has got two houses, one at Sirajuli and the other is at No. 2 Nanglichar and he claims that on the date of occurrence; he was at Sirajuli. He has not stated that there was a 'mehfil' at his house or that the three defence witnesses were present along with others in his house on that night. 20. In the present case, the accused persons have admitted the land dispute with the deceased and according to them it was because of this land dispute they have been falsely implicated. We find no basis for the above plea as the two widows will not allow the actual assailants to go scot-free and thereby falsely implicate the accused persons. So far the plea of alibi is concerned, the trial court has given weighty reasons for disbelieving the defence story. 21. We find no basis for the above plea as the two widows will not allow the actual assailants to go scot-free and thereby falsely implicate the accused persons. So far the plea of alibi is concerned, the trial court has given weighty reasons for disbelieving the defence story. 21. Considering the fact that the defence witnesses have not been able to state as to when the alleged 'mehfil' was organized and on consideration of the statements of the accused persons and in absence of any material on that count we hold that the defence plea is not at all a believable one and the plea of alibi is not at all established. 22. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the accused persons and their participation in the above incident has been fully established and considering the nature of the injuries, the intention to cause death is apparent. 23. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 24. Send down the records. Appeal dismissed.