¶1OPINION
¶2This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice aforethought under Arts. 1256 and 1257, V.A. P.C. Appellant was tried before a jury and the jury assessed punishment at thirteen years’ imprisonment.
¶3In this appeal, appellant complains of the refusal of the trial court to submit a charge on circumstantial evidence. Such a charge was timely requested in writing by appellant who also filed written objections and exceptions to the court’s charge complaining of the omission of the circumstantial evidence charge.
¶4The evidence showed that appellant and his wife, Maria Gamboa, had an abrupt separation on June 14, 1969, and that she took the children and went to live with appellant’s sister-in-law, Minnie G. Gamboa, the deceased. Although the children subsequently returned to live with appellant, his wife remained with the family of the deceased. On June 30, 1969, appellant left Hermann Hospital without being discharged, where he had been receiving heavy medication for an old back injury. After a stop at the home of his sister, Jane Rivera, appellant went to the deceased’s home where he once more sought unsuccessfully to persuade his wife to return to him.
¶5Appellant arrived at deceased’s house around 11:00 p. m., June 30. The evidence was conflicting, but there was some testimony that four of deceased’s children were asleep in the living room at the time. Deceased’s eldest child, Rosalinda, was awake in a darkened bedroom of the house. Jane Rivera arrived at deceased’s house shortly after appellant but left fifteen minutes later after “patting down” her brother and ascertaining that he was unarmed. Rivera testified that appellant was speaking softly and pleading with his wife to come back to him. Moments after Rivera left, Rosalinda Gamboa testified she heard four gunshots. She stepped quickly to a place in the dining room where she could see her uncle, appellant herein, placing a gun in his pocket. She could not see her mother from this position, nor could she remember if anyone beside her brothers and sisters, her mother, and appellant’s wife were in the living room at the time. She testified that appellant then ripped the telephone off the wall and *248left the house. In the living room, both Maria and Minnie Gamboa were found dead of gunshot wounds.
¶6Around 11:30 p. m., appellant returned to the house of his sister, Jane Rivera, who noticed for the first time that appellant had a gun. Appellant gathered all his children and placed them in a truck he had stolen and departed for Colorado. He was apprehended a short time later.
¶7At the trial, the witness Rosalinda. Gam-boa was unable to identify the .22 caliber pistol introduced into evidence as the pistol she saw her uncle placing in his pocket on the night of the shootings. She could say only that the pistol she saw her uncle placing in his pocket had a white handle and a black barrel, like the one in evidence, but that her mother also kept a similar-looking pistol in the house. The witness Rivera testified that if appellant had had a gun prior to 11:30 p. m. on the date in question, she would have noticed it. Appellant himself testified that the pistol in evidence resembled a pistol he had owned, but he could not be sure if it was the same one. Randy Sillivan, a ballistics expert, testified that the fatal bullets probably came from a .22, but that he had been unable to determine that the bullets had come from the weapon in evidence.
¶8The evidence against appellant was thus circumstantial. While the circumstances adduced strongly suggested his guilt, there was no direct evidence of the factum pro-bandum. No one saw appellant fire the fatal shots. Nor was there direct evidence that the bullet which killed the deceased came from the weapon later taken from appellant. Under such circumstances, Texas law requires that a charge on circumstantial evidence be given. 4 Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 2049, p. 357. The State contends, however, that the facts are in such close juxtaposition that they amount to direct evidence and therefore a charge on circumstantial evidence is not needed.
¶9On the basis of the record before us, we do not think the facts were in such close juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony obviating the need for a charge on circumstantial evidence. Farris v. State, 496 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
¶10The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.