Short Note : There is the solitary Statement of Mohanlal Kotwar (P. W. 7) to connect the appellant with the knife assault on Prayagsingh. If the evidence of Mohanlal Kotwar (P. W. 7) is reliable, then the conviction of the appellant can be maintained on his solitary testimony. Mohanlal Kotwar (P. W. 7) stated that when the deceased bent down to put lines for the Kabaddi play, the appellant came from behind and dealt several knife blows on him with the result that he died on the spot. His cross examination contains immaterial omissions. However there is nothing to indicate that the witness had any animus against the appellant. No doubt the appellant's uncle had given him notice in respect of some loan, but this will mean enmity with uncle and not with the appellant. He is the village Kotwar and thus an independent witness. The evidence of Mohanlal Kotwar (P W. 7) is corroborated in material particulars by the FIR (Ex. P-10) lodged within 2-1/2 hours of the incident. The police station was at a distance of 4 miles. Further the evidence of Mohanlal kotwar (P. W. 7) is also corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Pathak (P. W. 8) who found a number of incised and penetrating wounds on the person of the deceased. Mobanlal Kotwar (P. W. 7) stated that the appellant had inflicted repeated knife blows which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. This Court has no difficulty in accepting his evidence and in maintaining the conviction of the appellant on his sole testimony. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , relied on, Appeal dismissed.