The judges, however, said that the contention regarding the motive was contradictory.
The Court noted that the motive attributed to the accused by the prosecution has got two limbs. First, the removal of the hindrance in convert one Arunkumar, who had married a Muslim girl from Hinduism to Islam and the second, to threaten people from other communities not to enter into confrontation with Islam.
The bench reasoned that if the accused actually wanted to kill Kumaresan so that he is not an obstacle in conversion of his son to Islam, then the modus operandi would have been to kill him by maintaining secrecy of the plan.
However, if they wanted to create fear and terror among the people of other beliefs, then their plan would have been to kill Kumaresan openly.
“A logical analysis would reveal that both the limbs of motive travel vice versa and they cannot be meeting at any point,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
