Hariprasad, J.

1. We heard the Death Sentence Reference (DSR) made by the Sessions Judge and the Criminal Appeal filed by the convict together since common questions of fact and law arise in both these matters.

2. Prosecution case, revealed from the final report, is as follows:

Accused/appellant was utterly desperate over his business failure. At the same time, his siblings were leading enviable lives. Accused, in order to tide over the difficulties, availed loans from individuals and a nationalized bank. He intensely aspired to seek employment abroad for which he had to pay Rs.50,000/- immediately. At the relevant time, he was in a dire financial stringency. On account of his lust for money, he committed the murder for gain. The victim Bindu, aged 37 years, was brutally killed on 16.11.2010 at about 3.30 in the afternoon and her gold ornaments were robbed. Husband of the victim was conducting a lodge in the upper portion of their residential building and she was managing its affairs. The accused gained entry into that portion in the pretext that he was seeker of an accommodation on monthly rent. He attacked the victim with a chopper after confining her in a room. Multiple cut wounds were inflicted on the head and face by using the chopper. With these allegations, the investigating officer filed a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) alleging offences punishable under Sections 449, 347, 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). It is relevant to note that the learned Sessions Judge also framed charges indicting the accused for the aforementioned offences, the significance of which shall be dealt with later.

3. Prosecution examined 47 witnesses, marked 48 documents and 23 material objects. No defence evidence was adduced. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge heard both sides and pronounced the judgment, whereby the accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and a death penalty was imposed. He was convicted under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Again, he was convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Further, under Section 347 IPC he was again convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine. Apart from the above, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 201 IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. After pronouncing the conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings for confirmation under Section 366 Cr.P.C.

4. We heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant and Smt. S. Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the offences against women and children. We also carefully perused the written argument notes submitted by Sri. Renjith B. Marar.

5. The investigative machinery was set in motion by filing Ext.P1 first information statement (FIS) by PW1. Gist of the averments in Ext.P1 FIS is as follows:

PW1 is a home maker. On 16.11.2010 at about 3.30 hours in the noon, she was engaged in cooking food for her children, who were expected in a short while from school. At about 3.45 hours, she heard a shriek from the second floor of the victim's house. PW1 could identify that it was Bindu screaming. It is an unchallenged fact that house of PW1 is next to the victim's house and they were thickly known to each other. Victim's husband Ramakrishnan is an architect. On hearing the scream, PW1 went to Ramakrishnan's office, where PWs 4 and 10, his employees, were working. PW1 along with them went upstairs and searched for Bindu in the first and second floors. There are four rooms in the second floor, which are intended to be let out to the