The judgment established the importance of motive in criminal cases, the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the relevance of direct evidence in proving the incident.

Appellant, sole accused in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1989, was sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha to rigorous imprisonment for seven years on conviction for an offence punishable under the second part of S. 304 of the Penal Code, though he was tried for offences punishable under sections 341 and 302.

2. Deceased Jose and P.W. 13 were partners of a provision store, to which the appellant owned Rs. 1,999.00 by way of price of goods purchased on credit. Quarrel consequent on the demand for the amount is the motive alleged by the prosecution.

3. At about 6.00 p.m. on 24-3-1989, deceased, as requested by the appellant at about 3.00 p.m. on that day at his residence, came near the bridge at Kuttampuzha, where the appellant was standing. Deceased demanded the amount due. A quarrel ensued. Appellant caught-hold of the deceased and stabbed him on his neck with M.O. 1, which was taken out from his loins. On his way to the hospital, Jose died. This is the prosecution case.

4. Plea of the appellant is one of private defence. He would say that on the morning of the date of incident, deceased played host and entertained him in a toddy shop, but finally asked him to pay the bill for Rs. 48/-. He promised to pay the next day as he had no money then. In the evening, when they met, deceased quarrelled with him on this score and attempted to stab him. A scuffle ensued. Deceased sustained the injury in that scuffle.

5. Defence version is not supported by any evidence, circumstance or probability. Not even the hostile witnesses supported such a version. There is nothing to show that the deceased was armed with any weapon or that there was any attack or apprehension of attack from him. Further, the facts alleged by the appellant, even if taken as correct, cannot operate as a motive for the deceased to attack him because he did not give any reason for provocation.

6. P.Ws. 1 to 11, 13 and 23 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the incident and motive. Among them, P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 23 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of these witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 11 and 13 alone supported the prosecution. All others turned hostile. Regarding the actual occurrence, we have only the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

7. Fact that Jose sustained an injury at the hands of the appellant at the time and place alleged by the prosecution and succumbed to the injury is clear from the ocular and medical evidence as well as from the evidence of the police officers. P.Ws. 9 and 11 took him to the hospital and P.W. 10 examined and declared him dead at 7.00 p.m., on the date of incident itself. P.W. 21 conducted autopsy and Ext. P 17 is the post-mortem certificate. There was an elliptical stab wound 3 x 1 c.m. on the left side of neck, 4 c.m. below and slightly behind pinna of the left ear. It was an obliquely placed wound directed downwards and inwards completely cutting across the carotid artery. Cervical vertebral column was also partly cut at C 4-5 level. Medical evidence is that the injury could be caused by stabbing with M.O. 1 and it is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Opinion as to cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to this injury. There was a second injury cutting left pinna of the ear partly. Ocular and medical evidence show that this injury could be caused while with drawing the weapon after inflicting the first injury.

8. On the evidence, Additional Sessions Judge found, in paragraph 19 of his judgment, that it is clear that it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injury. But, in para 27 of the judgment, Addition Sessions Judge found that motive alleged is not proved. That seems to be one of the reasons which persuaded to him to come to the conclusion, in para 24, that there is nothing on record to show that the accused had intention to cause death. Motive is not an integral part of the crime. It is only an aid in the assessment of criminality. When there is acce