JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

A septuagenarian spinster, a retired teacher, residing alone was murdered. The prosecution alleged that the perpetrators of the crime were the two accused, one a neighbour and the other a resident of the locality, who trespassed into her house, through the roof, in the night of 02.04.2005 smothering her to death and decamping with her ornaments and cash. The first accused was arrested and stood trial twice, since the earlier conviction was set aside and de novo trial ordered. The conviction and sentence from which the present appeal arises is after the de novo trial. The second accused has given the slip and has not yet been traced. The prosecution makes an assertion, through the Investigating Officer that it was the second accused who removed the tiles on the roof of the house and climbed down into the inside of the house on the night of the 2nd of April, 2005.

2. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW24 as witnesses, produced Exts.P1 to P33 documents and marked MO1 to MO14 material objects. For the defence, the wife of the accused was examined and four documents were marked as Exts.D2 to D5. Two contradictions Exts.D1 and D1(a) were marked from the prior stat