P. Somarajan, J.

1. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad. He was tried on the allegation of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of an aged woman, who was leading a lonely life in a hamlet at Pattambi in Palakkad district.

2. The nutshell of the prosecution case is that, the accused, who is a carpenter by profession committed criminal trespass into the residential house of the victim in and around 7.45 p.m. on 4.6.2009 and committed murder by strangulating her using a saffron colour dhothi and manually pressing on her neck and mouth and committed theft of gold ornaments worn by the victim, a gold chain weighing approximately 1½ soveriegn (12 grams) and an ear ornament weighing ¾ sovereign (6 grams) and left the house. On the next day morning, the neighbours noticed the house of the victim lying closed and when they entered into the house, they found the victim lying dead on the kitchen floor.

3. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 24, got marked Exts.P1 to P24 and identified M.Os. 1 to 9 and on hearing both the parties, found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 397 IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of three months for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C. with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Set off was also granted under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the pre-trial detention already undergone by judgment dated 16.12.2011.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Only circumstantial evidence alone is involved in the case as there is no eye-witness to the incident. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows:

(1) The presence of the accused in the nearby place at and around the time in which the alleged incident was happened.

(2) Recovery of piece of gold ingot based on the disclosure statement alleged to have been given by the accused while in police custody and missing gold chain from the body of deceased.

3. Recovery of another incriminating object - A saffron colour dhothi used as ligature for committing murder based on the disclosure statement alleged to have been given by the accused while in police custody.

4. The medical evidence tendered through P.W.20, the Professor of Forensic Science and Police Surgeon regarding the nature of ligature mark and the nature of ligature used and its identification of saffron colour dhothi recovered.

5. Seizure of M.O.5, empty coconut oil bottle from the occurrence place allegedly belonged to the accused and absence of proper explanation during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. All these circumstances were accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and found that the chain of circumstances are complete as against the commission of offence by the accused and no other hypothesis rather than the one pointing towards the guilt of the accused is possible and accordingly found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 397 IPC and convicted thereunder. But going by the impugned judgment it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge did not apply his mind regarding the relevancy of above said circumstances. It is also not discernible from the impugned judgment, how these circumstances are relevant and what are the incriminating factors, if any attached to. The relevancy of each and every circumstance leading to the commission of offence by the accused should be discussed in reference to its “relevancy” to the particular incident/event and