Judgment :- THOMAS, J. Deceased, a septuagenarian, sustained three stab wounds, one on his chest, another on his neck and the third on his left arm. The incident happened during the evening of 2-11-1988. He succumbed to his injuries within a short while. Appellant, a relation of the deceased, was convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of the deceased and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted for inflicting stab injuries to two other persons (P.Ws. 1 and 2) in the same incident and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has filed this appeal. 2. Prosecution case is compendiously narrated in the following lines : Deceased was seventy-two when he died. He was living with his brother (P.W. 1) and children in their house. This family had a feud with appellant's uncle over a timber tree which stood on or near the border of their properties. That dispute gave rise to criminal cases filed against each other. The local panchayat member (P.W. 8) intervened and brought about a truce between them. As the appellant was not consulted on this, he resented against the terms of settlement. Around 6 p.m. on the date of occurrence, appellant went to deceased's residence to enquire about the settlement. The deceased came out of the house and walked along with the appellant talking about the subject. As they covered the Courtyard and reached the public road, appellant took out a knife and inflicted stab injuries on the deceased. P.W. 2 (son of P.W. 1) rushed to the rescue of the victim, but he too was stabbed by the appellant. However, the knife was wrested from him when P.W. 2 was reinforced by P.W. 1 Who came to the scene hearing the noise. When the appellant was disarmed, he escaped from the place. The deceased was removed to the nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead by the doctor. 3. The chest injury sustained by the deceased was ostensibly fatal. The doctor (P.W. 6), who conducted the autopsy described it as a penetrating wound on the suprasternal notch piercing the sternum and extending to the mediastinum cutting the walls of the arch of aorta. The injury on the neck was also serious. It cut through the muscles of the neck and severed the jugular vain. He had an incised muscle deep wound on the left upper arm. The injury on the neck was also serious. It cut through the muscles of the neck and severed the jugular vain. He had an incised muscle deep wound on the left upper arm. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to the injury on the chest. P.W. 2 had an incised muscle deep injury on the left upper arm. P.W. 1 sustained a relatively minor incised injury on the left leg and some multiple abrasions on the knees. 4. The appellant stated in the trial Court that the decision of panchayat member to release timber tree in favour of his uncle was to the chagrin of the deceased who entertained a feeling that appellant was instrumental in bringing about such a settlement. About the incident, he said that when the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 caught hold of him and assaulted him, he took out his knife and brandished it in self-protection. To support his version, he examined D.W. 1. Learned Sessions Judge refused to place reliance on D.W. 1 for which some reasons have been given in the judgment. It is unnecessary to repeat those reasons, since no serious attempt was made to convince us of the reliability of D.W. 1's evidence. We have no doubt, as we went through his testimony, that it does not deserve credence: 5. Prosecution has proved fairly well that the deceased sustained fatal injuries from the appellant at the place and time suggested in the charge. We may point out that there was no serious dispute on that point either in the trial Court or here. Learned counsel for the appellant here tried to show that deceased was the aggressor, or in the alternative the prosecution failed to establish that appellant was the aggressor. Whether appellant exceeded his right, if any, need be considered, only if we agree with the defence contention that deceased would have been the aggressor. 6. Mini, niece of the deceased was examined as P.W. 4. She is a college student. Her evidence is that while she was in the sit out of the house, appellant went there and enquired about the deceased and she called the deceased. Appellant and deceased together walked towards road talking with each other. According to her, she went inside the house, but within a few moments she heard the sound of a cry from road side. Appellant and deceased together walked towards road talking with each other. According to her, she went inside the house, but within a few moments she heard the sound of a cry from road side. As she came to the front she saw the deceased tottering to his feet with bleeding injuries and slumping down. She saw her father and brother (P.Ws. 1 and 2) trying to wrest the knife from the appellant. 7. Mini's evidence was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The cross-examination did not succeed in creating any doubt about the reliability of her version. We have no reason to dissent from the learned Sessions Judge regarding appreciation of her evidence. 8. It was P.W. 3, mother of Mini, who narrated the whole incident including the first stab wound inflicted by the appellant. Learned counsel while attacking her testimony, contended that it has the inherent weakness, since P.W. 3 is the wife of P.W. 1 and the Court cannot normally expect her to speak against her kith and kin. True, her evidence has that initial handicap. Learned counsel drew our attention to some discrepancies as between her evidence and the evidence of Mini (P.W. 4) and contended that P.W. 3 would not have seen the commencing part of the occurrence. Even if we accept the contention that evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the early part of occurrence is not free from doubt, it does not provide any leverage to appellant to show that deceased was the aggressor. Appellant's version that he was attacked by the deceased along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 has no semblance of truth and is totally inconsistent with the version of P.W. 4. 9. Learned counsel contended that appellant had no motive to attack the deceased and hence it is not probable that the appellant would have turned turbulent abruptly after decoying the deceased up to the road. Inviting our attention to the evidence of Panchayat member (P W. 8) that deceased was unwilling to give up his claim over the standing tree, learned counsel argued that the deceased would have had the animus against the appellant. 10. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. 10. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Campbell struck a note of caution in Reg v. Palmer (Shorthand Report at page 308 CCC May 1856) thus : "But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from the experience of Criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties". Though it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant. In Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 : (1955 Cri LJ 1653) it was held "that is true, and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion". In some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental transaction of the accused which would have impelled him to act. No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental transaction of the accused which would have impelled him to act. No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. Sometimes it may appear that the motive established is a weak one, That by itself is insufficient to lead to any inference adverse to the prosecution. 11. However, we do not think that this is a case where the motive factor remains totally undiscovered. Appellant would have resented against the terms of settlement decided upon by the Panchayat member. It must be remembered that appellant was not involved in the negotiations, nor was he consulted about the truce. Perhaps appellant would have thought that it was the deceased who secured an advantage in the bargain as he got himself absolved from criminal cases. Appellant would well have thought that withdrawal of claims over the timber trees was not commensurate to the gain made by the deceased in the transaction. How this nucleus would have snowballed in his mental economy cannot be fathomed or measured with precision. Whatever that be, we are reasonably certain that the appellant came to see the deceased not for expressing his happiness over culmination of the dispute. Quite probably, the dialogue he had with the deceased would have simmered his pent-up temper. 12. We have not come across any circumstance to presume that the appellant had any right of private defence at any stage. If the appellant was attacked by three persons, as he alleged, it is inconceivable that he would have escaped unhurt. He did not receive even a scratch or a bruise on his body. 13. Before parting with the case, we may say a word about preparation of sketch in sessions cases. We express our displeasure over the sketch (Ext.P 7) prepared by the Village Officer since it was drawn up in a slip-shod fashion. It does not show the landmarks such as the gate, the courtyard or the sit-out of the deceased's residence and compound nor even the road and the location of the shop wherefrom P.W. 1 came. A sketch which is bereft of at least important landmarks of the prosecution story is not worthy to be produced in a criminal trial. Ext.P 7 has obviously been drawn up in a perfunctory manner. A sketch which is bereft of at least important landmarks of the prosecution story is not worthy to be produced in a criminal trial. Ext.P 7 has obviously been drawn up in a perfunctory manner. A sketch in sessions case must help the Court to understand and appreciate the evidence. Otherwise, there is no need to mark it as an exhibit. We feel that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to verify initially whether the sketch prepared by the Village Officer or Village Assistant has any practical utility in the case. If the sketch already prepared is deficient in such particulars, there is nothing wrong in arranging to have another sketch. Even if the Public Prosecutor fails to supply one like that, it is desirable that the Sessions Judge calls upon the Village Officer or the Village Assistant concerned to prepare another sketch indicating necessary particulars. This can be done either before or after framing charge or at any other convenient stage so that a sketch would be made available at least during final stage of trial. We make these observations as guidance for Sessions Judges. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings made by the lower Court. Hence we confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.