Court in confirming the reference made by the Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS 7. Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Aditya Sondhi appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Trial Court and the High Court have erred in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316 and 364 IPC. 7.1 It is further submitted that the motive for killing the deceased 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 5