how Ms. Pramila was lying on the lap of the appellant who had strangulated her resulting in foam oozing out of her mouth and as a result he had shouted at the appellant which resulted in drawing the attention of the neighbours and help was sought from the public. Appellant is said to have escaped from the scene of occurrence leaving the deceased in the auto and she was rushed to Savkar Hospital initially and later shifted to the civil hospital, where she was pronounced dead. 11. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 fortifies the case of the prosecution the motive of the appellant for commission of the crime. There was no reason for PW1 to depose falsely against her husband and it is also not the case of the appellant that his wife had any enmity towards him and she has falsely deposed against him. The evidence of PW1 is not shaken in the cross 11examination. As such the contention of the appellant that motive for commission of crime is not proved by the appellant is liable to be rejected. 12.