JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This appeal is directed under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. ST(Type-1) 22 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life along with a payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for the said offence and in default to payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer further R.I. for 6 (six) months. 2. The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, is that one Sri Sukhamani Sinha of Narendranagar under Damcherra Police Station of North Tripura District on 20.06.2017 lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Damcherra Police Station stating inter alia that his sister-in-law Sunita Sinha was given in marriage with Sri Krishna Kumar Sinha (accused-appellant herein) of the same village as per Hindu rites and customs about six years back from the date of lodging the FIR. It was alleged that after few days of their marriage Krishna Kumar Sinha started abusing and torturing Sunita Sinha, his wife physically on different pretext. During their wedlock one male child was born but the behavior of accused Krishna Kumar Sinha was not changed, rather, he accelerated the volume of torture upon her. On finding things unbearable, Sunita took shelter at her parental house. But, there also the accused off and on used to threat his wife over telephone that he would kill her. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 19.06.2017, at about 11:00 pm, after receiving a phone call from her husband Krishna Kumar Sinha, she came out from her parental house and she was missing. Complainant asked Krishna Kumar as to the whereabouts of Sunita, when he was avoiding that matter by different pretext. Thereafter, on 20.06.2017 at about 05:41 pm Krishna Kumar informed the complainant over mobile phone that on 19.06.2017 at about 12:00 hours there was hot altercation between him and his wife on the road beside the parental house of Sunita and thereafter, he committed murder of Sunita pressing her throat and the dead body of the deceased was thrown by him into the pond of one Nirananda Sinha. 3. 3. On receipt of the complaint, O.C., Damcherra PS had registered the case vide Damcherra PS Case No. 2017 DMC 011 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201 of IPC against the accused Krishna Kumar Sinha and endorsed the case for investigation. 4. The investigating officer took up investigation and on being satisfied with the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against accused Krishna Kumar Sinha for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201 of IPC. 5. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being prima facie satisfied, framed charge against the accused Krishna Kumar Sinha under Section 302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses; introduced some material documents and material objects, those were exhibited. 7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC with regard to the incriminating materials as surfaced against him when he claimed to be innocent and denied that he was falsely implicated with the case. He declined to adduce any evidence on his behalf. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant has presented the instant appeal before this court. 10. We have heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. for the State-respondent. 11. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Krishna Kumar Sinha has been falsely implicated with this case because there is no conclusive theory that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife. There may be a matrimonial discord between them since long years of their marriage but, that dispute will not drive the accused to end a life, particularly, his wife. Because there is no evidence that the victim party had ever reported to police about any kind of torture upon the victim physically or mentally by the accused during those six years. Further, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that most of the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and naturally they are the interested witnesses. Because there is no evidence that the victim party had ever reported to police about any kind of torture upon the victim physically or mentally by the accused during those six years. Further, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that most of the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and naturally they are the interested witnesses. There is suspicion regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the police. His submission is that only if a person who is closed to his wife's family states that the accused expressed that he had committed the murder of his wife that has to be proved convincingly with great care and caution. Again, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that if this is a case of strangulation, there must have some sign of resistance from the victim. Here, there were no marks of injury on the person of the accused that at the time of strangulation the victim had tried to resist with her hands. If she resisted, at least there would have some nail marks in the body of the accused. Finally, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel submitted that there is material discrepancies in the extra-judicial confessional statement made by the accused and basing on such confession, the accused-appellant cannot be held guilty and accordingly, he prayed for acquittal of the accused-appellant. 12. On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. supporting the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge submitted that the prosecution case is well established with the chain of circumstances and last seen theory. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. further submitted that most of the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-8 are corroborative with each other and there is a complete chain of circumstances based on which the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused. More so, Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. gave much emphasis on the confessional statement made by the accused before the IO (PW-11) where the accused has vividly stated that how he had committed the crime of murder of his wife. Learned Addl. P.P. strongly submitted that there is no room to doubt the prosecution case and prayed for upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge. 13. Learned Addl. P.P. strongly submitted that there is no room to doubt the prosecution case and prayed for upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge. 13. Based on the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the records as well as the evidence put forth by the prosecution witnesses. 14. From the evidence of PW-1, the complainant, it reveals that deceased Sunita Sinha was given in marriage with the accused Krishna Kumar Sinha alias Raju about six and half years back from the date of her death. Sunita used to stay in her parental house due to matrimonial dispute with her husband. On 19th June 2017 on Monday at night Sunita was found missing from her father's house. He came to know from her father that she had some talk with her husband and then she went out. Accordingly, he inquired Raju as to the whereabouts of Sunita. Raju first denied. On several times, he telephoned Raju. Ultimately, Raju telephoned him on 20.06.2017 and asked him to meet with him. He met with Raju near Fire Service of Damcherra and there on his query Raju informed him that he had murdered Sunita and thrown her dead body in a pond of one Nirananda Sinha which was 25 meters away from the house of the father of the deceased. PW-1 deposed that he informed the facts to his parents-in-law and thereafter he reported the matter to Damcherra PS. His father-in-law was also accompanied with him to the PS. Further, PW-1 stated that accompanying with police he went to the pond of Nirananda and recovered the dead body from the pond. He found mark of injuries above the eye, neck and throat of the deceased. In cross-examination nothing material difference is found except drawing attention on his statement that was stated during his examination-in-chief that Raju asked him to save him and he suggested him to surrender to the police. But no such statement was there in her 161 statement. 15. PW-2, the father of the deceased deposed in similar manner like as PW-1 that his daughter on 19th June, 2017 at about 10:00 pm on receiving a telephone call from her husband, accused Krishna Kumar Sinha, his deceased daughter went out from her house. He came to know this from his grandson. But, thereafter his deceased daughter did not return. PW-2, the father of the deceased deposed in similar manner like as PW-1 that his daughter on 19th June, 2017 at about 10:00 pm on receiving a telephone call from her husband, accused Krishna Kumar Sinha, his deceased daughter went out from her house. He came to know this from his grandson. But, thereafter his deceased daughter did not return. He informed all his relatives and thereafter he came to know from his son-in-law, Sukhamani Sinha that accused Krishna Kumar Sinha confessed that he killed his wife i.e. his daughter and had thrown out the dead body into the pond of one Nirananda. Thereafter police recovered the dead body from the pond in their presence and he saw some marks of injuries on the eye and throat of the deceased. PW-2 identified the accused in the dock. In cross-examination the defence had drawn his attention to his 161 statement which he made during his examination-in-chief that on query to the son of his daughter, he came to know that his father had come to meet with his mother and that his mother received telephone call of his father. But, no such statement was there. 16. PW-3, the owner of the pond deposed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from his pond while he was present. In cross-examination the witness volunteered that Sunita used to stay at her father's house. 17. PW-4, the step mother of deceased deposed in similar tune like as the PWs 1 and 2. She deposed that on the fateful day when the incident took place Sunita went out of the house at about 10:00 pm receiving telephone call of her husband. Prior to that Sunita went out of her room along with her child and after some time son of Sunita returned in a state of crying. On query to the child, she came to know that Sunita had left with her husband. PW-4 further stated that on previous occasion also once Sunita went out with her husband and also stated that day after the incident she came to know from PW-1, Sukhamani that Krishna Kumar Sinha had murdered Sunita as Sukhamani was told by Krishna Kumar and the body of the deceased had been thrown into the pond of one Nirananda of their locality. No incriminating material evidence was brought out by the defence in her cross-examination. 18. No incriminating material evidence was brought out by the defence in her cross-examination. 18. PW-5 and PW-6 are the seizure witnesses in whose presence one mobile set of LAVA was seized by the police from the possession of the accused. PW-5 was also witnessed the seizure of one piece of conch (broken), two pieces of 'churi' (bangle) and one golden colour nose ornament and one nighty of the deceased. 19. PW-7, Sri Amit Deb was also a seizure witness in whose presence the IO had seized SDR (Subscription Dial Recorder) and CDR (Call Details Recorder) in respect of three mobile numbers. 20. PW-8, the mother of the deceased deposed that on one night her daughter went out of the home stating that her husband called her. She went out alone but did not return. On the following day at about 9 am her dead body was recovered in a pond near by their house. She further stated that Sukhamay reported her that Raju surrendered to the police confessing that he murdered her daughter and put the dead body on the pond. Nothing material came out from the cross-examination. 21. PW-10 Dr. Pranabesh Chakraborty deposed that on 21.06.2017 he along with Dr. Satish Kr. Singh conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Sunita Sinha in connection with Damcherra PS Case No. 2017/DMC/011. On examination, they found 3(three) small abrasions on right side of neck measuring 1 and 1/2' X 1' X 1/2' each. PW-10 opined that the cause of death in this case is manual strangulation i.e. throttling. They opined that there was sub-conjunctival haemorrhage and swelling present on right eye. 22. PW-11 being the IO of the case deposed that before taking up of investigation of the case, at about 6:45 pm on the following day of the incident accused Krishna Kumar Sinha surrendered before him and disclosed everything and made confession about the incident which was entered in the GDE No. 26 about 18:45 hours. On identification, the said GDE was marked as Exbt. 8. He further deposed that accused Krishna Kumar Sinha produced one mobile set of LAVA company containing one Aircel SIM bearing No. 9615665306 which was seized by him by preparing a seizure list. On identification, the said GDE was marked as Exbt. 8. He further deposed that accused Krishna Kumar Sinha produced one mobile set of LAVA company containing one Aircel SIM bearing No. 9615665306 which was seized by him by preparing a seizure list. IO visited the place of occurrence with the accused Krishna Kumar and thereafter with the help of Fire Service Staff and women constable dead body of the deceased was recovered from the pond. He prepared hand sketch map with separate index of the place of occurrence; examined available witnesses; collected SDR and CDR in respect of mobile Nos. 9615665306, 9856054527 and 9615233838. Finally, after investigation having prima facie satisfied, he submitted charge-sheet against accused Krishna Kumar Sinha. 23. PW-12 being a neighbour of the deceased is hearsay witness. He came to know from the father of the deceased that accused Krishna Kumar murdered Sunita Sinha by strangulation and he also found the dead body of Sunita being recovered from the pond of Nirananda of their locality. 24. On meticulous scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it appears before us that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Learned Addl. P.P. has referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Satish, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 where the apex court made reference to its earlier decision in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., [1996] 10 SCC 193, and has observed thus: '21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.' 25. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.' 25. Here, in this case PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-8 have vividly corroborated each other with the circumstantial evidence that- (i) on the fateful night deceased Sunita Sinha received telephone call from accused Krishna Kumar Sinha who is her husband and thereafter she went out of her parental home, but, did not return; (ii) that on 19.06.2017, at night Sunita was found missing from her parental home and as per deposition of PW-1 she had some talk with the accused and PW-1 inquired with the accused about the whereabouts of Sunita but the accused responded suspiciously; (iii) it transpires from the deposition of PW-1 that the accused divulged/confessed him that he had committed murder of Sunita and left the dead body of deceased into a pond of their locality; (iv) further, the accused on being surrendered had also confessed the commission of murder of his wife before the IO and on the basis of his confession the IO recovered the dead body as shown by the accused; and (v) from the evidence of PW-3 i.e. the owner of the pond it reveals that in his presence the dead body was recovered and he had seen some injuries on her throat and above eye of the deceased which amply proves the opinion of the doctors who had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The doctor also deposed that on examination they found 3(three) small abrasions on right side of neck measuring 1 and 1/2' X 1' X 1/2' each and sub-conjunctival haemorrhage and swelling present on right eye. 26. So, the chain of circumstances here in this case is completely established and there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 26. So, the chain of circumstances here in this case is completely established and there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Besides, the last seen theory is well applicable in this case since from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 it amply proves that the accused called the deceased on the fateful night and in response to his call she went out from her room but she never returned on that night. Subsequently, on the following day her dead body was recovered from a pond. In Satish (supra), the apex court very categorically held that--'It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases....' In this case, we find that there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen/met together as we gather from the testimony of evidence from PW-8, the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on the fateful night while she went on bed, during that time, her daughter went out of her house on being called her by Raju i.e. the accused. 27. Now, we come to the point of extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the police. On perusal of the confessional statement recorded by the IO, it reveals that it was made with sound mind of the accused. He voluntarily made it before the IO that he committed murder of his wife. A few excerpts from English rendering of the extracted from the confessional statement reads that--'I had called my wife over mobile phone and asked her to come out of her parental house and meet me along the road in front of her parental house. As I told her, she came out of her parental house and met me along the road in front of her parental house. At that time, while having conversation between us, we had an altercation and suddenly, she started pushing me. As I told her, she came out of her parental house and met me along the road in front of her parental house. At that time, while having conversation between us, we had an altercation and suddenly, she started pushing me. Then, I pressed her neck resulting of which she had died. Then, I threw her dead body in the water of the pond of Sri Nirananda Sinha adjacent to the road and went home. If I am taken along with, I will show you the spot of occurrence.' 28. On examination of such statement made by the accused before the IO, we are of the opinion that the accused made such statement without any pressure, threat and even nobody had compelled him to make such statement. It was made voluntarily and it is trustworthy one that inspires confidence and gets greater credibility and having evidentiary value as it is supported by a chain of circumstances which is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. 29. Further, if we come to the medical evidence, we find that there were abrasions on both right side and left side of neck of deceased which is very significant to come a conclusion that deceased died due to strangulation and from the medical evidence it indicates that after causing the death the dead body of the deceased was thrown into the water of the pond. 30. Having considered the overall analysis of the evidence herein-above, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that on the strength of the circumstantial evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-8 and on the strength of last seen theory, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura District, Dharmanagar in ST (Type-I) 22 of 2017. Accordingly, it stands affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Send down the LCRs.