JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Appellant Sri Bimal Chandra Sarkar was tried along with Parimal Sarkar, Smt. Sukla Sarkar, Probhat Sarkar and Smt. Khela Rani Sarkar in Sessions Trial No. 33 (ST/S) of 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur under the charges 498(A)/304B(2), IPC while appellant Bimal Chandra Sarkar was alone tried in the aforesaid trial under Section 302, IPC. After due trial, all the accused persons including the appellant herein were found not guilty under the charges 498A/304(B)(2), IPC, and accordingly all were acquitted. However, the trial court did record a finding of guilt against the appellant under Section 302, IPC, and convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to suffer R.I. for another year. 2. Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as indicated above, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur preferred this instant appeal contending various grounds among others that the trial court failed to read the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record in its proper perspective and, thus, arrived at an erroneous finding, which cannot sustain legally. 3. In order to appreciate the merit of this appeal it would be appropriate for us to traverse the facts in a nut shell. Appellant Bimal Chandra Sarkar is the husband of the deceased Bina Roy (Sarkar), while the other accused persons, whose names are indicated above, are the in-laws of the deceased. Said Bina Roy (Sarkar) was given in marriage with the appellant on 26th Ashar 1408 BS (10th July, 2001). Both started their conjugal life staying at the residence of Bimal Ch. Sarkar and both maintained a cordial relationship in between. But after some months of the marriage, Bimal Ch. Sarkar at the instigation of her (deceased) in-laws started ill-treatment to Bina Roy (Sarkar) for cash and Yamaha motor cycle to be collected from her parents house. When Bina Roy (Sarkar) failed to fulfill their demand on account of financial constraint of her parents, tortured on her aggravated. At that time Bina Roy (Sarkar) was carrying pregnancy and for delivery she had been to her parents residence. On 9.12.2002 Bina Roy (Sarkar) gave birth a child and she came back to her matrimonial home along with the baby. At that time Bina Roy (Sarkar) was carrying pregnancy and for delivery she had been to her parents residence. On 9.12.2002 Bina Roy (Sarkar) gave birth a child and she came back to her matrimonial home along with the baby. Four to Five days later, Bina Roy's (Sarkar's) mother (PW2) had also been to her (tit-ceased) matrimonial home. Even in presence of her mother (PW2) Bina Roy (Sarkar) was mentally tortured by her in-laws. On 31.12.2002 Bina Roy (Sarkar) was allegedly killed by her husband, the appellant Bimal Chandra Sarkar and hanged her by fastening with a rope to a "Vim" at her own room. On her death, her brother (PW1) on 1.1.2003 filed an FIR (Ext.-1) with the Officer-in-charge of Manu Bazar Police Station, Sabroom, South Tripura. Manu Bazar Rs. Case No. 1 of 2003 was registered on 2.1.2003. Inquest on the dead body was conducted by S.I. Subrata Debbarma (PW11). Post mortem on the dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar) was conducted by Dr. Pradyut Kanti Debbarma (PW12) on 2.1.2003. After completion of the investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant and other named accused persons under Sections 498A/303/304B and 302, IPC. 4. At this stage it would be apposite for us to state that on the death of Bina Roy (Sarkar), her husband, the appellant on the same date (31.12.2002) lodged an information, in writing (Ext.-4) with the officer-in-charge of Manu Bazar police station where in it was alleged that deceased Bina Roy (Sarkar) committed suicide by hanging in her own room. In the information it was narrated by him that during the relevant time the deceased, his wife was suffering from an ailment called "Brain Out" and was under treatment of Dr. Ashim Chowdhury. It was further stated by the appellant that at the time of occurrence he was not at home. On filing this information, Ext.-4, Manu Bazar PS. U.D case No. 18 of 2002 was registered under Section 174, Cr.PC. Written information (Ext-4) was received by S.I., Subrata Debbarma (PW11) at Madhavnagar at about 14.20 hours. 5. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur framed charges against the appellant and other accused persons (acquitted vide impugned judgment) under Sections 498A/304B(2), IPC and under Section 302, IPC alone against appellant. Appellant and all others pleaded not guilty to their respective charge framed against them. 5. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur framed charges against the appellant and other accused persons (acquitted vide impugned judgment) under Sections 498A/304B(2), IPC and under Section 302, IPC alone against appellant. Appellant and all others pleaded not guilty to their respective charge framed against them. 6. Prosecution to bring home the charges as indicated examined 14(fourteen) witness altogether. They are as follows: 1. Sri Subhas Roy PW1 Brother of the deceased. 2. Smt. Bakul Roy. PW2 Mother of the deceased. 3. Sri Arun Ch. Roy PW3 Father of the deceased. 4. Sri Narayan Chakraborty PW4 the priest. 5. Sri Samir Gan Chowdhury PW5 A invite to the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. 6. Sri Swapan Shil PW6 A police Constable of Manu Bazar Police Station. 7. Sri Narayan Patari PW7 Maternal Uncle. 8. Sri Badal Ch. Roy PW8 Uncle of the deceased. 9. Sri Bidyut Roy PW9 Brother of the deceased. 10. Sri Asish Biswas PW10 An advocate clerk. 11. Sri Subrata Debbarma PW11 S.I of Manu Bazar P.S. 12. Dr. Pradyut Kanti Debbarma PW12 Who conducted Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased. 13. Sri Asish. Kr. Deb PW13 Office-in-charge of Manu Bazar Police Station. 14. Sri Sanjoy Roy PW14 Sub-Div. Policy officer of Sabroom Sub-Div. 7. Prosecution also relied and proved the following documents: Exbt. 1 F.I.R, Lodged by Sri Subhas Roy (PW1) Exbt. 2 Inquest Report Exbt. 3 Seizure List dated 31.12.02. Exbt. 4 F.I.R., lodged by appellant Bimal Ch. Sarkar. Exbt. 5 Dead Body Challan. Exbt. 6 Seizure List dated 2.1.03. Exbt. 7 Post Mortem Report. Exbt. 8 Hand Sketch map with index. 8. After due trial Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur rendered the judgment and order of conviction and sentence on 12.12.2003, now impugned in this appeal. We have already indicated herein before that by the impugned judgment and order of conviction appellant alone was convicted and rest of the accused were acquitted from the charges. 9. We have heard Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. for the State of Tripura. 10. Death of deceased, Bina Roy (Sarkar) is not denied. Mr. 9. We have heard Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. for the State of Tripura. 10. Death of deceased, Bina Roy (Sarkar) is not denied. Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, however, criticized the judgment and order of conviction and sentence primarily on the following grounds: (a) Suppression of First Information Report lodged by Sri Subasb Roy, PW1 with the officer-in-charge of Manu Bazar police station on 31.12.2002 at 12.45 hours entered vide G.D. Entry No. 918; (b) Non-disclosure of fact and circumstances in regard to the death of deceased, Bina Roy (Sarkar) on 31.12.2002 by the witnesses who were very much present in her residence at the time of her death to the Investigating Officer of the case; (c) Material contradiction appearing in the face of the evidence on record; (d) Non-examination of Doctor Ashim Roy Chowdhury and (e) Discrepancy in regard of conduct of post mortem examination on the dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar). 11. Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant in regard to the ground No. (a) led us to the First Information Report (page 3 of the Paper Book) submitted before us that the First Information Report, Ext.-4 allegedly lodged on 31.12.2002 and received at 12.45 hours has been suppressed by the prosecution to suit the case of the prosecution as reveal in Ext.-1 filed by Sri Subhas Roy (PW1), the brother of the deceased. In view of suppression of the said FIR, FIR lodged on 1.1.2003 by Subhas Roy cannot inspire confidence in the mind of the court in regard to the actual facts or cause of death of the deceased on 31.12.2002. It was also argued by Mr. Bhowmik that the FIR, Ext.-1, in view of suppression of First Information Report lodged on 31.12.2002, in view of the time gap, can be branded as manufactured, concocted and engineered. It was argued further by Mr. Bhowmik that Ext. 1, First Information Report lodged by Subhas Roy failed to reveal the truth in respect of the death of the deceased. Had the FIR allegedly lodged on 31.12.2002 been placed before the court for consideration perhaps the trial court could have adopted a view otherwise than the view adopted in the impugned judgment. Mr. Bhowmik that Ext. 1, First Information Report lodged by Subhas Roy failed to reveal the truth in respect of the death of the deceased. Had the FIR allegedly lodged on 31.12.2002 been placed before the court for consideration perhaps the trial court could have adopted a view otherwise than the view adopted in the impugned judgment. Mr. Bhowmik, therefore, argued that suppression of FIR lodged on 31.12.2002 materially affects the case of the prosecution as brought in against the appellant. In view of the submission so advanced by Mr. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, we noticed that on 31.12.2002 at 12.45 hours an information in writing was lodged with Manu Bazar police station by Sri Subhas Roy, S/o. Arun Chandra Roy of Ishan Chandra Nagar, RS, Belonia, South Tripura against the appellant and others. All these information find place at page 3 of the Paper Book. But from the reading of the First Information Report, Ext.-1, it is noticed by us that the same had been lodged on 1.1.2003 by Subhas Roy (PW1) which had been received on 2.1.2003 at 14.40 hours and registered as Manu Bazar P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 under Section 304B, IPC. Such endorsement is found to have been available in the FIR itself. If we take the facts as placed before us by Mr. Bhowmik in regard to submission of First Information Report with police we must come to a finding that another FIR had been lodged on 31.12.2002 minus the FIR (Ext.-1) lodged on 1.1.2003. Admittedly, First Information Report allegedly lodged on 31.12.2002 is not before us and, therefore, we are in darkness about the real fact in regard to death of the deceased or 31.12.2002. Argument of Mr. Bhowmik that there is suppression of material facts cannot be extinguished in view of proof of Ext.-1, the FIR lodged by PW1 on account of suppression of the FIR lodged on 31.12.2002 as is evident from page-3 of the Paper Book. The real cause of death of the deceased has been kept aloof from us to give a decision in this appeal in its proper direction. For an occurrence 2/3 FIR are possible. If the FIR lodged first in time is missing from the record or willfully withheld by the prosecution, credibility of the subsequent FI Rs suffers. The real cause of death of the deceased has been kept aloof from us to give a decision in this appeal in its proper direction. For an occurrence 2/3 FIR are possible. If the FIR lodged first in time is missing from the record or willfully withheld by the prosecution, credibility of the subsequent FI Rs suffers. In this instant appeal the same circumstances prevail and, therefore, the credibility of Ext.-1 lodged by PW1, Subhas Roy suffers to a considerable extent. From page-3 of the Paper Book we have noticed that on the basis of the information received on 31.12.2002 Manu Bazar P.S Case No. 1 of 2003 was registered. Again on the basis of the FIR, Exbt.-1, we have also noticed that it was received on 2.1.2003 at 14.40 hours and registered it as Manu Bazar P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 under Section 304B, IPC. Therefore, it becomes uncertain on the basis of which FIR, Manu Bazar P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 had actually been registered. This anomaly was also not set at rest by the prosecution while arguing the appeal. Therefore, in the face of this fact we are constrained to hold that First Information Report lodged on 31.12.2002 indicated in page-3 of the Paper Book has been suppressed by the prosecution, production and proof of which might have turned the table against prosecution. We., therefore, do not find any absurdity in the argument as advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Withheldment of the FIR allegedly lodged on 31,12.2002 creates a doubt in our mind in regard to truthfulness of the facts incorporated in FIR (Ext.-1) We find sufficient force in the argument advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik on this point. 12. In regard to the ground Nos. (b) and (c), it was argued by Mr. Bhowmik that evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8 and PW9 cannot inspire confidence in the mind of the court in respect of the charge brought in against the appellant inasmuch as neither of them though claimed to present at the P.O (the house of the deceased) disclosed anything to the Investigating Officer, PW11 about the death of the deceased. Mr. Bhowmik that evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8 and PW9 cannot inspire confidence in the mind of the court in respect of the charge brought in against the appellant inasmuch as neither of them though claimed to present at the P.O (the house of the deceased) disclosed anything to the Investigating Officer, PW11 about the death of the deceased. Mr. Bhowmik, therefore, put emphasis that evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8 and PW9 should be discarded at the threshold when PW11, the I.O., confirmed that neither of the P Ws as indicated disclosed about the death of the deceased when he visited the place of occurrence. PW2, Smt. Bakul Roy is the mother of the deceased, who had been to the matrimonial home of the deceased after some days of the delivery of the baby by the deceased. Her stayal at the matrimonial home of the deceased also finds place in the First Information Report, Ext.-1. FIR as well as the evidence of PW2 goes to show that on 31.12.2002 she was very much present in the house of the deceased. PW1, the first informant Subhas Roy, the brother of the deceased also deposed that after receiving the news of death of his sister Bina Roy (Sarkar) he rushed to their house and witnessed the hanging condition of his sister at her room. It is also in his evidence that police visited the place of occurrence and got down the dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar). This goes to show that when the police visited the house of the deceased and conducted inquest on the dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar) neither of them disclosed about the death of the deceased to PW11. We have also noticed that Sri Ashish Kr. Deb (PW13), Sub-Inspector of police of Manu Bazar police station also conducted the investigation of the case but the witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW8 and PW9) did not disclose the cause of death of the deceased on 31.12.2002. When PW11 and PW13 were in the witness box (confirmed during cross-examination) the witnesses indicted above did not disclose anything to them in the context of death of the deceased Bina Roy (Sarkar). Taking aid of these inconsistencies Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, the learned Counsel for the appellant laid stress that due to such material inconsistencies and withheldment of actual truth from the Investigating Officer, conviction of the appellant cannot be legally warranted. Taking aid of these inconsistencies Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, the learned Counsel for the appellant laid stress that due to such material inconsistencies and withheldment of actual truth from the Investigating Officer, conviction of the appellant cannot be legally warranted. In view of the submissions advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, a survey being conducted by us on the evidence of those witnesses, we could notice that neither of them disclosed anything to I.O. regarding the cause of death when all of them claimed that they were present at the P.O. Also from the scrutiny of the evidence of PW11 and PW13 we could find that those witnesses did not divulge anything about the cause of death of the deceased Bina Roy (Sarkar). Apart from that we also noticed that the witnesses contradicted themselves to their previous statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC. It is noticed from the cross-examination of the witnesses that the attention of the respective witness was drawn to his or her previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC and the statement made in the examination-in-chief did not find place in the previous statement, therefore, evidence of the respective witnesses appearing in the examination-in-chief cannot hold good. From the evidence of PW11, PW13 and PW14 we do not find that such contradictions appearing in the face of record of respective witnesses had been confirmed by the prosecution or by the defence except one or two. Prosecution, therefore, cannot escape the vice of such contradictions appearing in the face of the record. We have noticed that almost all the witnesses were confronted with their previous statement recorded by police. When a material fact is withheld by particular witness from the Investigating Officer, whose statement was reduced into writing under Section 161 of the Cr. PC, if such statement finds place in his or her evidence, the natural presumption would be that either the witness deposed falsely of this fact or omitted to state of the fact to the I.O. If in a particular criminal case such situation prevails almost in respect of every witness, the court would refuse to act on such evidence adduced by the witness. In this case also we are in the same breath and, therefore, evidence of PW1, PW2, PW8 together with PW5 and PW6 cannot inspire confidence in regard to the existence of the fact as indicated by them in their evidence-in-chief. The trial court while recording the conviction of the appellant failed to consider this aspect accepted the evidence of the witness as a whole in favour of the prosecution., We find force in the argument advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant on these points also. 13. From Exhibit-4, the FIR lodged by the appellant himself we could notice that after the birth of the child his wife, Bina Roy (Sarkar), the deceased lost her mental balance from 10.12.2002. She was treated by Dr. Ashim Chowdhury of Belonia, Sub-Divisional Hospital and diagnosed the ailment as "brain out". It was disclosed by Dr. Ashim Chowdhury that such type of ailment might take 15 days, 1(one)month or even 6(six) months for recovery. We could also notice that medicines were prescribed for such ailment. Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, taking aid of the exhibit-4 tried to convince us that Bina Roy (Sarkar), wife of the appellant due to loss of mental balance took the extreme step. It is true that neither the appellant nor the prosecution tried to examine Dr. Ashim Chowdhury to divulge the truth in regard to death of the deceased. We though find a faint force in the argument of Mr. M.K. Bhowmik in regard to the consequence of non examination of Dr. Ashim Chowdhury, we do not like to fall prey to the view of Mr. M.K. Bhowmik in view of attending facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. 14. Dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar) was brought to the hospital on 31.12.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. It was escorted by Constable, Swapan Shil (PW6) but. due to lack of sufficient light post mortem examination could not be done on the dead body on 31.12.2002 and 1.1.2003 also. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 2.1.2003 in between 9.30 a.m. and 12 Noon after identification of the dead body by Swapan Shil and Bidyut Roy, PW6 and PW9 respectively. PW12, Dr. due to lack of sufficient light post mortem examination could not be done on the dead body on 31.12.2002 and 1.1.2003 also. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 2.1.2003 in between 9.30 a.m. and 12 Noon after identification of the dead body by Swapan Shil and Bidyut Roy, PW6 and PW9 respectively. PW12, Dr. Pradyut Kanti Debbarma who conducted the autopsy on the dead body opined that deceased died due to strangulation leading to asphyxia and cerebral anoxia, venus congestion, which is homicidal in nature. The post mortem examination report, Ext.-7 was prepared by PW12 himself. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that he did not indicate in his report (Ext.-7) whether the injuries were anti-mortem or post mortem. From the evidence on record we have noticed that the dead body of Bina Roy (Sarkar) was found in hanging condition to a "Vim" inside her room. The inquest report prepared by PW11, Subrata Debbarma also indicates existence of small injury and round black spot in the lower portion of the deceased. It also indicates oozing out of blood from the female organ of the deceased and below the naval together with some black spot in the thighs, hands, legs, nose and ears of the deceased. But the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination while cross-examined admitted that no external injury was found over the abdomen. He further stated in cross-examination that bruises Discovered over the anterior chest might be the cause of handling of the dead body. Therefore, when the evidence of the doctor is found to have remained silent in respect of the nature of the injuries found over the neck and other parts of the body, we find it a hard nut to crack that the deceased was killed and hanged thereafter. Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that post mortem report prepared by the doctor concerned who conducted the autopsy is not a substantive piece of evidence, it would have no evidentiary value unless the doctor who conducted the autopsy is brought to the witness box by the prosecution. This piece of argument in our considered view will not hold good in view of the examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the Bina Roy (Sarkar). This piece of argument in our considered view will not hold good in view of the examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the Bina Roy (Sarkar). There is no indication in the record that the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination has not prepared the report. The ration as laid down in the case between Dhirai @ Dhirendra Das and Ors. v. State of Tripura 1998 (2) GLT 418: (1998) 2 GLR 334 to our considered view would not be applicable to this instant appeal. It is noticed from the impugned judgment that the trial court while adopting the view that Bina Roy (Sarkar) was killed took the assistance of the illustration that can be found in the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology edited by N. J. Modi, 17th edition. But the view adopted by the learned trial court basing on the illustration as referred to in the judgment cannot received a strong support in view of admission of the Doctor (PW12) regarding the nature of the injuries discovered on the body of the deceased Bina Roy (Sarkar). On this point Mr. M.K. Bhomik, learned Counsel for the appellant also laid stress not to put any reliance in the evidence of PW12, the doctor, in view of the observation of the Apex Court made in paragraph-8 of the judgment rendered in the case between Gulzar All v. State of H.P. (1998) 2 SCC 192 . In paragraph-8 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under: 8. If those letters are genuine, no doubt, they would reflect the mind A-1 and A-2 towards the deceased. PW20 (M.L. Sharma), Government Examiner on questioned documents, after comparing the handwriting in the said letters gave an opinion that both were written by the accused. An attempt was made by the accused, through the evidence of DW-1 (N.K. Jain who claimed to be an expert in the science of handwriting) to show that opinion of the Government Examiner is basically faulty. The High Court has observed that "there is a natural tendency on the part of an expert witness to support the view of the person who called him" and preferred the opinion of PW20 M.L. Sharma. The High Court has observed that "there is a natural tendency on the part of an expert witness to support the view of the person who called him" and preferred the opinion of PW20 M.L. Sharma. The said observation of the High Court cannot be downstaged, for, many so called experts have been shown to be remunerated witnesses making themselves available on hire to pledge their oath in favour of the party paying them, 15. In the case Anil Paul v. State of Tripura 1998 (1) GLT 190: (1998) 1 GLR 204 a division bench of this Court rejected the plea of suicide in view of the circumstances appearing in the face of the record. The division bench held that death occurred to the deceased was on account of strangulation. The division bench while recording such a view took the assistance of the evidence of the witness and the sketch map prepared and non-existence of other aids so as to reach the beam. In paragraphs - 17, 19, 21, 29 and 34 of the judgment Mr. J.N. Sarma, Judge, writing the judgment for the bench discussed all the evidence appearing therein. In our present appeal from the evidence on record, we have found the existence of a tool inside the room. Though it is stated in evidence that the legs of the deceased was found folded touching the ground, in absence of specific evidence of PW2 in regard to the nature of the injuries, such fact cannot project a view that the deceased did not commit suicide. Unless there is existence of acceptable evidence in regard to the cause of death of the deceased, basing on the evidence on record holding of the appellant guilty of charge under Section 302 would not be justified.. 16. We have already indicated in our discussions in the foregoing paragraphs that there are material contradictions/omissions. Even in spite of such contradictions/omissions appearing in the face of the evidence on record, the Public Prosecutor conducting the prosecution failed to declare the witness hostile to the prosecution and allowed evidence on record to set at rest. Section 154 of the Evidence Act provides the procedure to be followed to question by a party to his own witness. This procedure was, however, not adopted by the concerned Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution. Section 154 of the Evidence Act provides the procedure to be followed to question by a party to his own witness. This procedure was, however, not adopted by the concerned Public Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution. The division bench of this Court while rendering the judgment in the case between Abdul Hai and Ors. v. State of Assam 2006 (2) GLT 465: (2007) 1 GLR 275 in paragraph-13 reiterated the guidelines to be followed given in AIR 1963 Assam 151. Paragraph 13 of the judgment reads as under: 13. At this stage, we would like to emphasis 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 he 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 winch 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 filed that the language of the sentence does not tally with the statement recorded by them they simply support the contradictions by stating the such statement is not available in the case diary. A detailed guideline was given by this Court in the case of the State v. Md. Misir Ali AIR 1963 Gau 151 . 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 AIR 1963 Gau 151 . 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 the 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 ho 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 form 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. 17. Countering the argument advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, it was argued by Mr. This is the only correct procedure to be followed, which would be in conformity with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 17. Countering the argument advanced by Mr. M.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant, it was argued by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P., appearing for the State respondent that in the face of the lodgment of FIR, Ext-4 by the appellant himself, the appellant neither himself put into the witness box as witness to prove the same nor brought Dr. Ashim Chowdhury to prove the ailment of the deceased, therefore, the claim of the appellant that the deceased committed suicide triggered by such ailment cannot hold the field that she actually committed suicide. It was argued by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. that in order to prove such ailment of the deceased appellant ought to have brought Dr. Ashim Chowdhury unto the witness box. Simply by filing the FIR, alleging some facts without proving the same, one cannot brush as de the case of the prosecution brought against him. Mr. R. C Debnath, therefore, argued that on the basis of filing of a complaint/FIR by the appellant himself, prosecution case cannot be turned down. 18. It was also argued by him that the appellant claimed that he was absent from home at the time of occurrence, but the appellant failed to discharge his responsibility to prove as such. It was contended that when an accused takes a plea of alibi, such burden is to be discharged by him. Appellant having taken such plea admittedly failed to discharge his burden. Mr. R.C. Debnath, therefore, on these facts argued that the judgment rendered by the learned trial court cannot be set at knot. 19. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P., for the State respondents. We find no force in his argument in view of our discussions made herein before in respect of the points/grounds raised by the counsel for the appellant. It is noticed that prosecution failed to discharge its burden. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33(ST/S) of 2003 can not sustain legally. 21. In the result, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and quashed. Appellant is acquitted. Appeal stands allowed. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33(ST/S) of 2003 can not sustain legally. 21. In the result, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and quashed. Appellant is acquitted. Appeal stands allowed. 22. Appeal stands allowed. Send back the case records. Appeal allowed