is not proved. It is submitted that the PW1's statement that appellant was angry with the deceased Pramila as she got married out of caste, is a vague statement and without basis. It is further submitted that appellant did not have any anger towards the deceased and same was evident, as he and deceased used to visit each other's house and the same is confirmed by PW1 and PW3. It is further submitted that deceased was married for over a year and it is unexplained by the prosecution as to why the appellant would wait for a year to commit the offence and that too in a public place. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in Balaji v State of 5Maharashtra1, Dandu Jaggaraju v State of A.P.2 to contend that motive was not established as the accused knew of the inter caste marriage for long. 7.2 It is further submitted that the eyewitness PW2 is not reliable. It is submitted that PW2 had raised a loan by mortgaging appellant's second-hand motorcycle and that appellant and