The Court also held that the accused could not claim lack of motive since the case rested on the direct testimony of an eyewitness and not on circumstantial evidence.

The testimony clearly showed how the accused took the life of the minor child, making the evidence of motive less significant.

He further noted that non-interrogation of the accused’s wife did not weaken the prosecution’s case since the eyewitness accounts were sufficient to support the charges.

Concerning Raju not fleeing the crime scene, the Court held that individuals may react differently after committing a crime and that failure to attempt to escape the crime scene would not in itself suggest a lack of rational thought .

“There is no rigid or inflexible rule that after committing a crime any accused will attempt to flee.“, added the Court.

Therefore, he dismissed Raju’s appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.