JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated August 30, 2017 and the order of sentence dated August 31, 2017 passed by the learned Special Court cum Additional District Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 01 (01)/2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 26 (06)/2011.

2. Police had received a written complaint from Prosecution Witness (PW) 1 on February 4, 2011. Police had registered such written complaint as New Alipore Police Station F.I.R No. 17 dated February 4, 2011 under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Police had investigated on such First Information Report and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Court had framed charges as against the appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The case of the prosecution at the trial was that PW 1 had noticed a cartoon lying at the left side of the foot path in front of the main gate of the gym since morning. At about 9:45 A.M, he had noticed two police person standing at the side. He had reported to such police persons about the cartoon box. When the police personnel had come to the spot and opened the cartoon box, they found a female dead body. PW 1 had lodged a written complaint on the basis of which the police case was started. The appellant had strangulated his wife at their residence and left the dead body of the victim in a cartoon at the place where such dead body inside the cartoon was discovered.

4. At the trial, the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charges framed on January 5, 2012 by the Court and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution had relied upon 23 witnesses and various documentary and material exhibits to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

5. On conclusion of the evidences of the prosecution, the appellant had been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where he claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated. He had declined to adduce any defence witness.

6. By the impugned judgement of conviction, the appellant had been found guilty under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Judge had sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution did not produce any eye witness to the incident. The prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove the charges. According to him, prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charges as against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of such contention learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon 1989 Supp 2 Supreme Court Cases 706 (Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others).

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the test identification parade claimed to have been carried out to identify the appellant was vitiated. He has referred to the deposition of PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and the learned Judicial Magistrate before whom, the test identification parade had been carried out in support of his contention.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, PW 1 did not produce any document to prove that he worked in the gym and was present on that particular date and time to see the cartoon lying on the road for a long time. He has contended that, presence of PW 1 was doubtful since no General Diary was lodged by the police officer. The officer-in-charge of the police station to whom PW 1 narrated the incident was not examined to elicit the truth. In addition