P. Diwaker, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar in ST No.116/2011 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 382 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is a TV mechanic and had his shop near the house of the deceased namely Rachna Kundu. The appellant developed intimacy with the deceased who was residing all alone as her husband had deserted her. On 28.4.2011 the deceased called the appellant to her house to have sex with her and it is said that there she asked the appellant to have sex with her without using condom as she wanted to have a child from him. As the appellant was already married and had a son he refused to have sex with her without using condom. Then some dispute cropped up between the two and it is said that the appellant committed murder of the deceased by strangulating her with her scarf. On 29.4.2011 merg intimation Ex.P/1 was lodged by PW-1 Gopal, nephew of the deceased. Inquest over the dead body was performed vide Ex.P/3 on 30.4.2011 and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on the same day by PW-9 Dr. NR Navratan vide Ex.P/27 who noticed that the tongue was protruded, blood was oozing from the nose, there were abrasion and contusion on the neck, kidney, lungs, windpipe, ribs, membrane of the intestines were congested. In his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia and the nature of death was homicidal strangulation. After receiving postmortem report and merg inquiry, FIR (Ex.P/29) was registered on 9.5.2011 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC against unknown person.

On 10.5.2011 memorandum of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/5, based on which jewellery of the deceased, CD player, one shouldering machine were seized from the shop of the appellant vide Ex.P/6. Vide Ex.P/7 one portable colour TV and cash of Rs.6500/- was seized from the house of the appellant situated at Village P.V. 11. Vide Ex.P/8 cash of Rs.5000/- from one Neera @ Niranja, to whom the said amount was given by the appellant towards rent, was seized. Vide Ex.P/9 two cell phones allegedly belonging to the deceased were seized from one Kamal Mandal, to whom the same was given by the appellant. Vide Ex.P/10 cash of Rs.3000/- was recovered from one Sapan Haldar, to whom it was given by the appellant. Vide Ex.P/12 seizure of purchase receipt of TV and CD player was made from PW-7 Sapna Dey, daughter of the deceased. Identification proceedings of the ornaments were conducted vide Ex.P/23 and the ornaments were duly identified by PW-7 Sapna Dey. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 382 of IPC against the appellant.

3. So as to hold the accused guilty, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits as under:

(i) that there is no eyewitness account to the incident and the accused/appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence of very weak nature in the present case.

(ii) that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and even then conviction of the appellant has been recorded by the trial Court.

(iii) that the main piece of evidence against the appellant is his so-called memorandum and seizure effected in pursuance thereof, but the witnesses to memorandum and seizure have not supported the p