JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th of August, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 110/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Deceased- Jaibeer and the Appellant were friends. They were residents of village Ranpur. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.3.92, they came to visit the house of Thuinyaram (PW-7) in village Purnanagar. Thuinyaram (PW-7) was their brother-in-law (Jija) in village relations. Thuinyaram (PW-7), his wife Pati Bai (PW-10) took the Appellant to visit the house of Nankuram (PW-2). The deceased remained in the house of Thuinyaram. Thuinyaram, his wife and the Appellant consumed liquor in the house of Nankuram (PW-2). Thereafter the Appellant alone left the house of Nankuram saying that he is going for urination. When he did not return for a long time, Thuinyaram and his wife returned to their house and found that the deceased was lying dead in their house. There were many injuries on his body. Thuinyaram (PW-7) lodged the First Information Report (Ex.-P/12). In the said report, he raised suspicion against the Appellant. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/6) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Civil Hosptital, Jashpurnagar, where the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shrivastava (PW-12). He found many incised wounds on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of haemorrhage and shock due to incised wounds. The death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/16. In further investigation, the Appellant was taken into custody on 10.3.92 and his memorandum statement Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.-P/7) was recorded and a tangia was seized at the instance of the Appellant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8. Cloths of the Appellant were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/9. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Sagar, from where, a report (Ex.-P/18) was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on the tangia and the cloths of the Appellant. However, no report relating to the origin and the group of the blood etc. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Sagar, from where, a report (Ex.-P/18) was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on the tangia and the cloths of the Appellant. However, no report relating to the origin and the group of the blood etc. was filed by the prosecution. 3. Admittedly, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on two circumstances. First, the Appellant absconded from the house of Nankuram (PW-2) and he was not traceable till he was taken into custody for recording his memorandum statement; and second, blood stained tangia was seized at the instance of the Appellant. 4. Mr. Abhay Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, argued that even if the above circumstances are held to be proved, they may raise strong suspicion against the Appellant, but the suspicion cannot take the place of proof. He also argued that the prosecution has not proved, or even proposed, the 'motive' for commission of murder of the deceased by the Appellant which was important in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have to be fully established and all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should not be capable of being explained and the chain of the circumstantial evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. This is what the Supreme Court said in many cases. Therefore, we ought to be satisfied that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies leave no option but to hold that the crime imputed to the Appellant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. 8. The first circumstance is relating to the conduct of the Appellant. This is what the Supreme Court said in many cases. Therefore, we ought to be satisfied that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies leave no option but to hold that the crime imputed to the Appellant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. 8. The first circumstance is relating to the conduct of the Appellant. It comes in the evidence of Thuinyaram (PW-7) and Pati Bai (PW-10) that the Appellant accompanied them to the house of Nankuram (PW-2), where they consumed liquor and thereafter the Appellant left the house of Nankuram (PW-2) saying that he is going for urination and he did not return back. In Thimma v. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1871, the Supreme Court held that though the conduct of accused in absconding immediately after the occurrence of the offence is relevant evidence, as indicating to some extent his guilty mind, it is not conclusive of that fact because even innocent person when suspected may be tempted to such conduct to avoid arrest. Further in Raghubir Singh v. The State of U.P. AIR 1971 SC 2156, the Supreme Court held that the act of absconding, even if proved, is normally considered a some-what weak link in the chain of circumstances utilized for establishing the guilt of an accused person. In case on hand, we do not find any evidence even to indicate that the Appellant returned to the house of Thuinyaram (PW-7) from the house of Nankuram (PW-2). The prosecution has examined one Belo @ Belwati (PW-8) who simply deposed that she had seen a person going away from the place of occurrence along with a bag. It has not been established as to what was the time when she saw the said person. Whether by that time the incident had already taken place or incident had not at all taken place. Moreover, she did not identify that, in fact, he was the Appellant whom she saw going along with bag. There may be many reasons for the Appellant for going from the house of Nankuram (PW-2) or Thuinyaram (PW-7), but on the above conduct of the Appellant, it cannot be held that he committed murder of the deceased and thereafter he absconded from the place of occurrence. 9. So far as seizure of blood stained tangia is concerned, that itself would not be an incriminating circumstance against the Appellant. 9. So far as seizure of blood stained tangia is concerned, that itself would not be an incriminating circumstance against the Appellant. The tangia was seized from the room where the dead body was lying. It does not appear that it was in hidden condition. On appreciation of the evidence, it appears that it was simply visible to all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seizure of tangia was made at the instance of the Appellant. Even otherwise also, when the origin and the group of blood found on the tangia or the cloths were not proved, they would hardly be the incriminating circumstances against the Appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. We note that the prosecution has not at all even proposed any 'motive' for the Appellant to commit murder of the deceased. The settled principle of law is that when there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court. However, in cases which are entirely or mainly based upon and rest on circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or significance. (Please see Prem Kumar and Anr. v. State of Bihar (1995) 3 SCC 228 and Babu Lodhi and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1987) 2 SCC 352). In the present case, there were no eyewitnesses and the case of the prosecution was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the motive would have significance. The prosecution has even not suggested any motive, which was fatal for the prosecution in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the Appellant. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Sessions Judge fell into error while convicting the Appellant Under Section 302 IPC on the above sets of circumstantial evidence, which were not sufficient to hold him guilty of the said offence. 12. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant Under Section 302 IPC. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The Appellant was taken into custody on 10.3.92 and was released on bail on 24.1.2003. Presently he is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged.