JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 and 20.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court (Special), Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No.219 of 2008 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/379/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is as follows :Appellant is the son-in-law of one Ganesh Mondal, who is the neighbour of the de-facto complainant viz. Gobinda Chakraborty (PW1). On 02.11.2006, appellant came to his in-laws house; on 03.11.2006 at 8:00 A.M. he came to the residence of Gobinda and in presence of his wife viz. Ganga Chakraborty (PW2) took away their minor son Manab Chakraborty (aged 6½ years) on the pretext of taking him to the market; thereafter Manab was untraceable. His parents searched for the child. They came to know around 8/8:30 A.M. he was seen with the appellant at the tea stall of Sital Ch. Das at Takimari Bazar. At 9:00 A.M. they had purchased betel leaves from the shop of Mantu Bhakat at Khat Khatir more. One Sudhir Ghosh (PW5) had asked the child where he was going. Thereupon he stated they were going to the forest. It also transpired that the appellant had bought milk for the child from the shop of Bagha Roy at Mantadari Gate Bazar. Inspite of intense search the child could not be recovered. Appellant was also untraceable. Finally, on 05.11.2006 a missing diary was registered by Gobinda (PW1) at Ambari outpost. This was treated as FIR and Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.426 of 2006 dated 05.10.2006 under Section 365 IPC was registered. Out of suspicion the appellant was arrested. It is alleged he made a disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer (PW24). To work out the statement, the appellant was taken to Batasivita jungle and on his showing dead body of the child was recovered. Inquest was prepared. On the showing of the appellant bangle of the child was also recovered from Karmakar jewellers. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and Sailesh Karmakar, owner of Karmakar Jewellers.

3. Charges were framed under Sections 302/379/201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and under Section 411 against Sailesh Karmakar.

4. During trial, prosecution examined 24 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 and 20.06.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment and order, Sailesh Karmakar was acquitted of the charge.

6. PW1 (Gobinda Chakraborty) is the father of the deceased. He deposed appellant was the son-in-law of his neighbour. He had come to their residence in the morning and had taken away his son. He was performing puja. He searched for his son for three days. Finally, he lodged missing diary at Ambari outpost which was scribed by Ram Kanai Mondal. Police informed him that dead body of his son was found at Batasivita which is also knows as Khatkhatia jungle. He went to the spot. Police recovered the dead body at the instance of the appellant. He signed on the inquest report. A silver chain, a gold earring and silver bangle of the child were missing. Police recovered the bangle from