The absence of motive in a case depending upon circumstantial evidence may be a telling circumstance in favor of the accused. Circumstantial evidence must satisfy three tests to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Pareed Pillay, J.

Appellant (Al) was charged under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Thomaskutty by stabbing him with M.O.2 knife during the night of 21-4-1986 (at about 12-15a.m. on 22-4-1986). Second accused was charged under S.201 read with S.34 of the I.P.C.A2 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. Al was found guilty under S.302 and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Al and A2 are cousins. Al (hereafter referred to as 'accused') was an employee of Thomaskutty (deceased) who was the owner of Apsara Theatre. Calicut. In May. 1985 accused left the service of Thomaskutty on his own accord. Prosecution case is that while accused was working as a gate-keeper in Apsara Theatre he was a troublemaker to the management. that after leaving the service under Thomaskutty he tried his luck in several ventures unsuccessfully and that he was under impecunious circumstances. On 21-4-1986 Thomaskutty returned to his house after his work. P.W.1. a maid-servant in the house went to bed in the up stair portion of the building at about 10.30 p.m. Thomaskutty slept in the bed room in the down stair portion of the building along with his wife. a mental patient. P. W.1 heard the call bell twice followed by an alarm accompanied by the thud of something falling down. P.W.1 came down and found the light on and someone groaning from near the entrance door of the house. P.W.1 found Thomaskutty lying on the courtyard with his face downwards. She woke up the wife of Thomaskutty. Both of them went near Thomaskutty and found him in a pool of blood. They helped Thomaskutty to lie with face up. P. W.1 found injuries on his chest and back. By the time he was dead P. W.1 and wife of the deceased cried. Both of them proceeded to the adjacent house of Appunni Menon (P.W.2) and informed him about the incident. P.W.2 came to the place of occurrence along with P.W.1 and Mrs. Thomaskutty. P.W.2 realised that Thomaskutty was no more. P.W.2 told P.W.3. another neighbour to inform the Police Control Room over telephone. P.W.2 took P.W.1 and Mrs. Thomaskutty to his house. He informed Thomaskutty's father and daughters who were residing in a house at Mavoor Road. Within fifteen to twenty minutes police party came there. P.W.I. P.W.2 and Mrs. Thomaskutty came to the courtyard where the dead body was lying. P.W.1 lodged first information statement Ext. P-1 to P. W.19 Sub Inspector of Medical College Police Station. P. W.25 Circle Inspector held the inquest over the dead body. Ext. P-31 is the inquest report. P.W.26 Assistant Commissioner of Police. Calicut North Sub Division conducted investigation and laid the charge before the Court.

3. There is only circumstantial evidence in the case. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are:-(1) Motive for the accused to commit the crime;

(2) Evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 12 that the accused was seen near the place of occurrence at an untimely hour;

Test identification parade in which accused was identified by P.W.10; Finger print found on the door-handle of the house of the deceased; and The blood-stained pants and underwear of the accused.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of P.W.7. could show that the accused was not satisfied with the work and as the accused had a feeling that he was harassed by the management with several complaints he decided to break vengeance by liquidating his employer. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that in view of the fact that the accused resigned from service having obtained the amount legally due to him and as he was thereafter engaged in other avocations and as there is no evidence to hold that the accused was nursing a grudge against his erstwhile employer the motive suggested by the prosecution has not been proved at all in the case. Counsel for the accused further pointed out that in a case where the prosecution has alleged a motive and has failed to establish it adverse inferen