G. D. DUBE, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Rampur, holding the appellant guilty of the offence under under Section 302,1. P. C. convicting and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, 2. The case against the appellant is that Siraj Ahmad (deceased) and appellant Saeed Khaa happened to be friends prior to the alleged occurrence. They had developed some bad habits of committing unnatural intercourse with small boys. The father of the deceased had chided Siraj Ahmad and asked him to avoid company of the appellant. Consequently, there was estrained relation between the two. It has been stated by the prosecution that at about 12. 50 p. m. on 1ith July, 1987, Siraj Ahmad was going on a bicycle in Mohalla Pucca Bagh near the Dall Mill in the town of Rampur. The appel lant had asked Siraj Ahmad to get down from the bicycle. When the appellant had refused and continued riding his cycle replying to the appellant that he had no time and had to go, the appellant obstructed the way and tried to pull him down by catching the carrier of the cycle. The appellant gave knife blow on his neck from behind as a result of which Siraj Ahmad fell down from the cycle. Thereafter, two more blows-one of the chest and another on the abdomen were inflicted with the knife. The occurrence said to have been seen by Shakeel Ahmad (P. W, 2) Lallan Khan (P. W. 3 ). They had carried the deceased on a rickshaw to Police-Station Ganj. A report of the incident was lodged by Shakeel Ahmad (P. W. 1) at 12. 30 p. m. on 11-7-1977 same day. Siraj Ahmad was alive at the time of report. He had been taken to the District Hospital, Rampur. Dr. U. C. Srivastava (P. W. 4) had examined the injuries of Siraj Ahmad at 12. 45 noon same day on 11-7-1977. He had found the following six injuries on his person : - 1. Incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. depth of the wound could not be measured, on the left and outer side of the chest. It was 7 cm. lateral to left nipple. 2. Incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. x depth not probed, over outer aspect, back of left side of chest, 8 cm. below and back to injury No. 1. x 2 cm. depth of the wound could not be measured, on the left and outer side of the chest. It was 7 cm. lateral to left nipple. 2. Incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. x depth not probed, over outer aspect, back of left side of chest, 8 cm. below and back to injury No. 1. 3. Incised wound 1 cm. X 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. on the left side chin, 3 cm. below the left angle of mouth. 4. Incised wound 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. x 2 cm. on left side upper part neck 3 cm. behind the left ear. 5. Incised wound 4. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm x 2 cm. deep on the left side back of neck, 2 cm. below injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. skin deep on the middle part of outer border of left ear. 3. At the time of examination, Siraj Ahmad was unconscious. His pulse was not palpable. Blood pressure cold not be measured. Temperature was sub-normal and the skin was could calmy. The doctor had opined that injuries had been caused by some sharp edged weapon. Injuries 3 and 6 were opined to be simple. The remaining were kept under observation, 4. The injured was admitted in the Hospital. The protecution story is that a report (Ext. Ka-5) was sent to S. D. M. Sadar, Rampur at 2. 03 p. m. by Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 6) for recording dying declaration of Siraj Ahmad. Thereupon, Hem Chandra Mittal, Tahsildar Magistrate (P. W. 8) had re corded the statement of the deceased at 4. 15 p. m. same day. Siraj Ahmad died in the hospital at 12. 20a. m. in the night between llth and 12th July, 1977. 5. The investigation had been taken up by Bharat Singh, Sub-Inspector (P. W. 20 ). He had recorded the statements of the witnesses at the police-station and prepared site-plan (Ext. Ka-17) on the spot. On 12- 7-1977, he had conducted inquest proceeding of dead body in the Hospital. He had prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-19) of the dead body at District Hospital, Rampur and sent the body for postmortem examination. He had recorded the state ments of the witnesses also. The appellant was arrested same day i. e. 12-7-1977 at 6. 00 p. m. near Bilrampur Gate. He had prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-19) of the dead body at District Hospital, Rampur and sent the body for postmortem examination. He had recorded the state ments of the witnesses also. The appellant was arrested same day i. e. 12-7-1977 at 6. 00 p. m. near Bilrampur Gate. The appellant had stated that he will hand over the knife (weapon of offence) and the clothes which he had been wearing at the time of occurrence. Consequently, the appellant went to Pahari Gate along with the I. O. and the recovery witnesses Ram Autar and Ghasita (P. W. 13) and brought out a blood stained knife (Ext. 4) a blood stained pant (Ext. 7) and bushirt (Ext. 8) from a cluster of Naihal. A memo (Ext. Ka) was prepared at the spot. After completion of investigating charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 6. The post-mortem had been conducted by Dr. S. K. Agarwal (P. W. 1) at 12. 30 p. m. on 12-7-1977. He found stitche injuries at the very spot on which the injury was noticed by Dr. U. C. Srivastava (P. W. 4 ). The doctor had found that sixty and ninth ribs below injuries 1 and 2 were cut. The plural between the two injuries was also cut. There was two pint of blood in the left chest cavity. The lower lobe of the lung was also cut. The doctor had opined that the deceased had died about half a day before the post mortem. According to him, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 7. The prosecution had examined twenty witnesses in all. The appel lant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. He had stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. He had examined Udaivir Singh (D. W. 1 ). Deputy Jailor of the District Jail, Rampur who had proved the entry of the appellant in the jail and the clothes which he was wearing at the time of his admission. 8. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence had been declared hostile. The learned Sessions Judge had believed the fact of recovery of the knife (Ext. 4) on the pointing of the accused allegedly connecting it with the occurrence of this case. 8. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence had been declared hostile. The learned Sessions Judge had believed the fact of recovery of the knife (Ext. 4) on the pointing of the accused allegedly connecting it with the occurrence of this case. The learned Sessions Judge also found the dying declaration reliable and relying upon his statement of the decased recorded by the Tahsildar had held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. 9. It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged motive was not such which would have prompted the appellant to com mit the murder of the deceased. Secondly, it was further urged that the dying declaration was not reliable. According to this dying declaration, only there blows were inflicted by the appellant whereas the injury report and the post-mortem report indicate that the deceased had six injuries. Thus, the dying declaration is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Our attention was drawn to the statements of the witnesses and urged that from the very place of occurrence till recording of the statements by the Magistrate there was tutoring of the deceased and, therefore, it was probable that the deceased had not made statement on account of his own free will. Thirdly, it was also con tended that the deceased was not in such a fit mental condition as to be all to make a statement to the Magistrate. It was argued that if the deceased was not in fit mental condition and could not have made statement, the sole dying declaration cannot form basis of conviction. 10. Learned A. G. A. has drawn our attention to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadao, AIR 1985 SC 416 . It was held in this case that a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. It was further held that not even a rule of prudence has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. 11. The dying declaration in this case was recorded by a Magistrate. The Magistrate has stated that he had satisfied himself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition at the time of statement. He had obtained the certificate of the doctor attending on him that the maker of the statement was in a tit mental condition. 11. The dying declaration in this case was recorded by a Magistrate. The Magistrate has stated that he had satisfied himself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition at the time of statement. He had obtained the certificate of the doctor attending on him that the maker of the statement was in a tit mental condition. It is noteworthy that when injured Siraj Ahmad had been brought in the hospital at 12. 45 noon on 11-7-1977, he was unconscious. Dr. U. C. Srivastava (P. W. 4) has stated that he had been with the injured upto 1. 20 p. m. He had started the drip of glucose sline oxygen and injections of decardon and coramine were also given to the injured. Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W 7) had stated that at about 2. 00 p. m. , Siraj Ahmad was conscious. He had written a note (Ext. Ka-5) to the S. D. M. Sadar, Rampur for record ing the statement of the injury. It has been proved as Ext. Ka-S. It reads as under : - "sir, Kindly come for D. D. of Sri Siraj Ahmad, s/o Dunnan Khan, r/o Mob. Pakka Bagh, P. S. Ganj, Distt. Rampur admitted in serious condition in Distt. Hospitals in E. Wd. on 11-7-77 at 12. 45 p. m. He is a case of M. L. Inj. Thanks. Yours faithfully, O. N. Gupta, 11-7-77. at 2 p. m. " 12. This witness has further stated that he had been present at the time of recording of the statement of Siraj Ahmad. He had certified on the statement-sheet that Siraj Ahmad was conscious and capable of making statement at the time of recording of the statement by the Magistrate. He has also stated that as the drip of glucose was being administered through the veins of left hand, the thumb-impression of right hand thumb was taken. 13. A perusal of the post-mortem report indicates that the brain was not at all affected by any one of the injuries. Only the ribs and the lungs had been cut by the incised wounds. Keeping in view all these circumstances and particularly the line of treatment given by the doctor attending on him, it was most probable that the injured might have regained consciousness at 2. Only the ribs and the lungs had been cut by the incised wounds. Keeping in view all these circumstances and particularly the line of treatment given by the doctor attending on him, it was most probable that the injured might have regained consciousness at 2. 00 p. m. That is why the doctor had written to the S. D. M. Sadar to record dying declaration. No circumstance has been elicited from the cross-examination of the three doctors examined in this case, viz. , S, K. Agarwal (P. W. 1), Dr. U. C. Srivastava (P. W. 4) and Dr. O. N. Gupta (P. W. 7) that the injured could not have regained consciousness by the time the note (Ext. Ka-5) was sent to the S. D. M. Sadar. We, therefore, find no force in the con tention of learned counsel for the appellant that Siraj Ahmad was not in a proper mental condition as to be able to make statement. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statements of Shakeel Ahmad and other witnesses for the purposes of showing that Siraj Ahmad was tutored by his associates to tell the Magistrate that Saeed Khan appellant had inflicted knife injuries on him. This witness had been declared hostile by the prosecution. The effect of this declaration by the procecution was to avoid totally the statement of this witness. It Satyapal v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 , it was held that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with a leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result if such cross- examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. The statement on this Shakeel Ahmad cannot be believed inview of the statement of Dr. U. C. Srivastava. When (be injured had been admittted at 12. 45 noon, he was unconscicus. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 12. 15 p. m. same day. According to the prosecution, this injured was being carried on a rickshaw by Shakeel Ahmad and his companion. U. C. Srivastava. When (be injured had been admittted at 12. 45 noon, he was unconscicus. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 12. 15 p. m. same day. According to the prosecution, this injured was being carried on a rickshaw by Shakeel Ahmad and his companion. In such a circumstance, it does not appear to be probable that within half an hour the tutoring would have started to implicate the appellant if dying declaration was to be recorded. At that time the anxiety of Shakeel Ahmad would have been to save the life of the victim. 15. The statement of Shakeel Ahmad stands explained by the facts elicited from another hostile witness Subban (P. W. 11) who stated in cross-examination that while being taken on a rickshaw Shakeel Ahmad was asking Siraj Ahmad as to who had assaulted him. Thus from the statements of these hostile witnesses, it cannot be upheld that the witnesses had tutored Siraj Ahmad to implicate the appellant as the assailant. 16. The Magistrate Hem Chandra Mittal has stated that he had removed all the persons present around Siraj Ahmad at the time of recording statement. He admitted that there were only three or four person present near Siraj Ahmad. According to the doctor, Siraj Ahmad was admitted in emergency ward. Mohammad Ahmad (PW 6), father of the deceased had stated that when he reached the hospital on hearing the assault on his son he remained sitting in the verandah as the doctor had not permitted him to go inside This statement shows that when even father was no permitted inside the ward, none else would have been permitted to remain with the injured. Hence any pos sibility of tutoring to the injured stands ruled out. This statement has not been discredited by cross-examination or any other evidence, It is, therefore, apparent that none had any occasion to tutor the deceased. There is no force in this contention. 17. The last contention regarding injuries is also not made out if we examine the injuries mentioned in the injury report (Ext. Ka-3) with the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6 ). There is no force in this contention. 17. The last contention regarding injuries is also not made out if we examine the injuries mentioned in the injury report (Ext. Ka-3) with the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6 ). The dying declaration states that appellant Saeed had inflicted injuries on the back of his neck, injury No. 4 is on the left side upper part neck 3 cm, behind left ear and injury No. 5 is on the left side back of neek 2 cm. below injury No. 4. The dying declaration does not say as to how many blows were inflicted on the neck. Thus causing of the two injuries on the back can be said to have been stated in the dying declaration. It was stated that one blow was given on the region near the arms on the chest. The word "kokh" has been used. This corresponds to injury No. 1 measuring 6 cm. x 2 cm depth not probed over front and outer aspect of left side chest. The second injury was caused on the chest. This injury on chest was found by the doctor as 6 cm x 2 cm. depth not probed on outer aspect back of left side of chest 8 cm. below and bak to injury No. 1. 18. Injuries 1, 2, 4 and 5 are almost of similar dimensions Injury Nos. 1 and 2 are 6 cm long each. The incised wounds 4 and 5 are 5 cm x 4. 5 cm respectively in length. Thus these injuries appear to have been caused by same knife. 19. If we examine injuries 3, 4 and 6 together, it would appear that these injuries could have been caused by single below. If in the process of inflicting injuries on the neck, the chin and the outer border of the left ear and the site of injury No. 4 were in one line, then the edge knife granting against the left angle of mouth and outer border of left out would have caused the incised wound 3 and 6. 1 cm x 1/2 cm and half cm x 1/2 cm respectively. Thus the version given by Siraj Ahmad in the dying declaration is not against the medical evidence. The medical evidence on the other hand, cor roborates the dying declaration 20. 1 cm x 1/2 cm and half cm x 1/2 cm respectively. Thus the version given by Siraj Ahmad in the dying declaration is not against the medical evidence. The medical evidence on the other hand, cor roborates the dying declaration 20. In view or what we have said above, it is apparent that the dying declaration was of such a character on which implicit reliance could be placed. This dying declaration itself was sufficient to prove the offence of murder committed by appellant Saeed. 21. The sufficiency of insufficiency of motive may not be material in this case. It is very difficult to spell out the motive of a murderer. Some times even on flimsy matters a person may commit murder. Mohammad Ahmad (PW 6) has stated the motive part of the prosecution story. His state ment in this respect was not challenged by the prosecution in the cross-examination. Not a single question was asked in this respect. Hence it was established from the statement of Mohammad Ahmad (PW 6) that he had asked his son to leave the bad habit of sodomy and avoid the company of the appellant. On his asking, Siraj Ahmad had left the company of the appellant since one month before the occurrence. This might have created some enmity with Siraj Ahmad and he could have gone to the extreme of committing the murder of Siraj Ahmad. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance upon the recovery of blood stained knife and clothes from the cluster of Narkul. He has be lieved Ghasita (PW 13) on the ground that that he had frankly admitted that sometime before the occurrence he had been beaten by the appellant for filling less cotton in his quilt. In this way, this witness was an inimical witness. We resided at a distance of one mile from the place of recovery of blood stained knife. The statement of such a witness could not be relied upon. 23. Bharat Singh (PW 2) had stated about the recovery of blood stained knife. He had stated that Ghasita (PW 13) and Ram Autar were present at Bilaspur Gate. He had taken them along with him and gone to Pahari Gate. When the presence of Ghasita becomes doubtful, then whole story regarding the recovery of knife also becomes doubtful. In view of these circumstances, the fact of recovery cannot be believed. He had stated that Ghasita (PW 13) and Ram Autar were present at Bilaspur Gate. He had taken them along with him and gone to Pahari Gate. When the presence of Ghasita becomes doubtful, then whole story regarding the recovery of knife also becomes doubtful. In view of these circumstances, the fact of recovery cannot be believed. The lower court had erred in placing reliance on such recovery. 24. However, from the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the dying declaration is of such character on which implicit reliance can be placed. There was a motive also for murder. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the lower court had rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. 25. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below are maintained. The appellant be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal dismissed. .