The contention of amicus curiae was that the motive alleged by the prosecution was very weak and assuming that the incident regarding removal of appellant from the charpai by real brother of deceased had taken place, it could not have been the motive for committing the murder of deceased who was first cousin of the appellant.

May it be so that the motive was not so strong but it appeared that when deceased insisted that he could lodge the report of the incident despite his stopping his way by the appellant and his father, this act of deceased furcated the appellant as well as his father and on the instigation of the father the appellant fired gun shot on the deceased resulting in to his death. The reactions and retaliation differs from person to person and the prosecution cannot lead evidence as to what was the degree of retaliation and reaction in the mind of the accused and to what extent one can go.

Therefore, the occurrence could not be said without a motive. Moreover, the weakness of motive and absence of motive was not material in the case as the prosecution had relied on the testimony of eye witnesses and there is eye witnesses account of version the motive become immaterial and case was to be decided on the basis of strength of evidence of occular witnesses.