JUDGMENT : 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. 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 the involvement of the accused therein. The circumstance leading to the commission of offence by the accused should be complete and free from all other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is not at all permissible to bring all circumstances/factors under the umbrella of circumstantial evidence unless the circumstance is having a link/nexus with the complicity of accused in the commission of offence. The circumstance leading to the commission of offence by the accused should be complete and free from all other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is not at all permissible to bring all circumstances/factors under the umbrella of circumstantial evidence unless the circumstance is having a link/nexus with the complicity of accused in the commission of offence. The test is to find out whether a particular circumstance or a factor is having link/nexus with the complicity of accused in the commission of offence or any relevant circumstance/incriminating circumstance attached to the commission of offence. Those circumstances having link/nexus with any relevant circumstance/incriminating circumstance attached to the commission of offence alone would be relevant. The test is to find out the existence of link/nexus or the incriminating nature of a particular event or circumstance with the alleged commission of offence. The test can be applied by categorising the circumstances into two wider categories. (1) The circumstances which are having direct nexus/link with the alleged commission of offence, such as recovery of ornaments/belongings of the deceased, based on the disclosure statement of the accused while in police custody, recovery of weapon stained with the blood of the victim used for commission of offence, disclosure statement of accused while in police custody, recovery of ligature used for commission of offence based on disclosure statement of accused, dying declaration, extra judicial and judicial confession and the like. (2) The circumstances which do not have direct nexus/link with the commission of offence, but is having link/nexus with an incriminating circumstance attached to the commission of offence, such as:- (a) the deceased was last seen in the company of accused, the accused was found in the nearby place at and around the time in which the alleged incident took place, absconding of the accused immediately after the commission of offence and the circumstances which would fall under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Evidence Act. (b) The cases falling under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the case of alibi pleaded and disproved. (Section 11 of the Evidence Act). 7. In so far as the second category of circumstances are concerned, Section 106 is an exception to the general rule, which mandates the accused to speak and a conviction based on satisfaction of requirement under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is permissible. (Section 11 of the Evidence Act). 7. In so far as the second category of circumstances are concerned, Section 106 is an exception to the general rule, which mandates the accused to speak and a conviction based on satisfaction of requirement under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is permissible. But it is not so easy to convict an accused based on the materials which would fall either under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Evidence Act or on satisfying circumstances which would fall both under Section 8 and 9 of the Evidence Act, though they are relevant and would form part of the chain of circumstances. 8. It is the duty of the court to find out the circumstance which would come under the purview of the chain of circumstance based on its “relevancy”. 9. As far as the second category of circumstances are concerned, the court must look into how and in what way those circumstances linked to the incriminating circumstance attached to the commission of offence. 10. The recovery of alleged ligature, M.O.7 saffron colour dhothi and M.O.6 gold ingot, based on the disclosure statement alleged to have been given by the accused while in police custody, would come under the first category of circumstance having direct nexus/link with the alleged commission of offence. But there should be evidence to show direct nexus/link with the alleged commission of offence. Though M.O.7 saffron colour dhothi was recovered and sent for chemical analysis, no evidence was adduced to show that it was stained by the blood of the victim. No incriminating factor was either proved or established by the prosecution. So it would not fall under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. When any fact is deposed as discovered in consequence of a disclosure statement, the prosecution has to establish that the said fact is relevant and that it is an incriminating factor without which no fact discovered in consequence of disclosure statement can be brought under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The blood stain of the victim was not collected in order to have a comparison with the blood stain found in M.O.7 saffron colour dhothi. On the other hand, the accused is a carpenter by profession and there may be chances of getting his cloth stained by his own blood during the course of his work. The blood stain of the victim was not collected in order to have a comparison with the blood stain found in M.O.7 saffron colour dhothi. On the other hand, the accused is a carpenter by profession and there may be chances of getting his cloth stained by his own blood during the course of his work. The chemical analysis report exhibited as Ext.P21 did not satisfy the group or the Rh factor of the blood stain in M.O.7 saffron colour dhothi. Ext.P7 certificate of chemical analysis does not say anything regarding the blood grouping or its Rh factor of the blood stain collected from the occurrence place by using cotton swab, though human blood is detected. It is so unfortunate that the investigation has not collected the blood samples of the victim though there are recovery of dress worn by the accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. 11. The medical evidence adduced through P.W.19 doctor, who conducted postmortem examination is of no use, in the absence of incriminating factor attached to M.O.7 dhothi, wherein, though human blood was detected, no evidence was adduced to show the blood group of victim. M.O.7 cotton swab used for collecting blood stain from the occurrence place is also of no use, as the group of blood and its Rh factor were not detected. 12. The recovery of gold ingot based on the disclosure statement made by the accused has also failed to prove its relevancy as there is nothing to connect the ingot with the commission of offence, either directly or indirectly. It is not brought out what is the kind of gold chain worn by the deceased at the time of her death. The mere fact that the accused went to the shop of P.W.13 and sold a gold chain and later on it was converted into gold ingot does not itself bring the same within the purview of a "relevant factor" unless the same is having some link with the commission of offence. No link or nexus was proved by the prosecution. There is failure on the part of the prosecution even to show the type of gold chain worn by the deceased. What is brought before P.W.13 is a 'manimala'. There is no evidence to show that the victim was wearing a 'manimala' at the time of the alleged incident or immediately before it. There is failure on the part of the prosecution even to show the type of gold chain worn by the deceased. What is brought before P.W.13 is a 'manimala'. There is no evidence to show that the victim was wearing a 'manimala' at the time of the alleged incident or immediately before it. Added by the fact that the investigation has not conducted a search in the tiled house of the victim to show that the gold chain was found missing at the time of her death and to rule out the possibility of keeping gold ornaments during night time by the victim somewhere in her house. The investigation officer, P.W.23 had admitted during cross examination that she was not wearing any ear ornament at the time of the alleged incident as it might have been lost somewhere in Guruvayur on an earlier occasion. But the accused was charge sheeted and prosecuted based on the theft of above said ear ornament also. Lack of consistency is writ large on its face. 13. Oral evidence tendered through P.Ws.11 and 12, a cycle shop worker and the owner cannot be accepted, as the version given by them seemed to be highly improbable. Their version that the accused came to their shop and sought assistance of P.W.11 for pledging a gold chain, and it was refused by P.W.11 and that it was on the next day of alleged commission of offence will not give any assistance to the prosecution as there is no evidence to show that it is the gold chain taken from the victim. 14. Yet another circumstance raised by the prosecution is recovery of an empty coconut oil bottle from the occurrence place, which would also come under the circumstances categorised as first above. P.W.10, a grocer was examined by the prosecution to show that he has supplied coconut oil in that bottle to the accused. But P.W.10 did not identify the said bottle as the one given to the accused, though admitted that he uses bottles of the same nature for retail purpose of selling coconut oil and also admitted that he is preserving so many other empty bottles of the same kind in his shop. In short, there is no assertive evidence from P.W.10 regarding the identification of empty coconut oil bottle alleged to have been seized from the occurrence place. In short, there is no assertive evidence from P.W.10 regarding the identification of empty coconut oil bottle alleged to have been seized from the occurrence place. Further, it is also not explained what happened to the coconut oil purchased by the accused, if any and why he had brought the empty bottle to the house of the victim. The oral evidence tendered by P.W.10 is so vague as to the time and day on which it was given to the accused. 15. The next incriminating circumstance is the presence of the accused at and around the time in which the alleged incident was happened in a nearby road which would come under the second category of circumstance discussed above. Both the oral evidence tendered by P.Ws.5 and 6 did not satisfy the requirement which makes the circumstance relevant in the present case. The ocular version is to the effect that P.W.5 found the accused at and around 7 p.m. on 4.11.2009 walking through the road situated near to the house of the deceased Narayani Amma. It is not discernible from the impugned judgment how the said circumstance would become relevant in the commission of the alleged offence. Even according to P.W.5, he had seen not only the accused but some other person also, who were proceeding through the said road while he was proceeding in a bike. A person found proceeding through a public road may not have any relevancy unless it has got at least a linkage/nexus with any of the circumstances involved in the crime proved by the prosecution in order to have a complete chain. No such circumstance and no linkage/nexus was either proved or established. So it has no relevancy at all. 16. So far as the ocular version given by P.W.6, a salesman in a toddy shop, there is nothing to connect the accused with the alleged incident. According to him, he had seen the accused at about 8.30 p.m. on 4.11.2009 walking through the very same road towards east. Admittedly, the toddy shop situates three kilometres away from the house of the deceased. It is not specified or stated the exact place wherein he had seen the accused. So, it must be somewhere in between his house and the toddy shop. Admittedly, the toddy shop situates three kilometres away from the house of the deceased. It is not specified or stated the exact place wherein he had seen the accused. So, it must be somewhere in between his house and the toddy shop. It is also not brought out by the prosecution the place wherein his house situates and the distance between his house and the toddy shop. It is also not brought out by the prosecution the exact place wherein he had seen the accused though there is a long distance of three kilometres between the toddy shop and the house of the victim. Further, as discussed earlier, the mere presence of the accused on a road would not satisfy and cannot be considered as a circumstance connecting the alleged incident, unless it satisfies at least some linkage or connection with the alleged incident or any of the circumstance established by the prosecution in connection with the alleged incident. The prosecution failed in both counts. 17. M.O.8 nail clippings were collected under Ext.P12 mahazar from the body of the deceased. But no sample blood or tissues were collected from the body of victim and no sample blood was collected from the accused either to show his complicity in the crime or an incriminating factor attached to M.O.8 nail clippings. 18. Prosecution failed to prove any of the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused in the commission of offence and hence no offence has been proved against the accused. Accused is entitled to an order of acquittal and we do so by setting aside the judgment of the lower court, the finding of guilt of the accused under Sections 449, 302 and 397 I.P.C. and sentence awarded thereon. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower court and the conviction under Sections 449, 302 and 397 I.P.C. against the accused and sentence awarded thereon are set aside. The accused is acquitted of all the charges and set at liberty. The bail bond, if any executed, will stand cancelled.