M. Shriefuddin, J.

( 1 ) LASTLY, we may take up for consideration the argument of Shri I. U. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. His contention is that the appellant, a father of four minor children, would be the last man to commit the crime of such enormity. We may hasten to point out that the motive is basically known to the perpetrator of crime and the direct evidence about the motive may not always be available. In this case we are however told by Public Witness 18 Inder Dutt that the deceased had told him that the accused would kill her as she was suspected of having illicit relations with him (with Inder Dutt ). It would appear from evidence that a few years prior to the incident the appellant and the deceased had been tenants of the father of Inder Dutt PW 18. He seems to have known them ever since and from his own admission he was visiting them after they shifted to flat No. 66-D. On the date of occurance he visited the flat at 9 a. m. but on hearing the couple quarreling he returned back and then again visited the place at the time of incident. Admittedly the appellant was in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document