pointed out that paragraph 9 of his cross-examination shows that the prosecution could not establish the alleged motive. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467/2024 25. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that while appreciating the evidence of PW-1, it must be remembered that she is a rustic woman who had lost her son. He submitted that when her evidence was earlier recorded, she was under a threat by the accused. He submitted that after she was recalled, she told the truth. His submission is that the Court should not discard the testimony of PW-1 as, ultimately, it is the testimony of a woman who has lost her son as a result of a brutal murder. He also pointed out that PW-1 is an injured eyewitness and, therefore, her testimony should not be discarded. He submitted that the Investigation Officer is not highly educated. Consequently, it is always possible that he would make mistakes while drawing the mahazar, showing the situation at the site where the offence occurred. Thus, too