JUDGMENT Loknath Prasad & P.K. Sarkar, JJ. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded by Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial no. 51 of 1987 through which the sale appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the India Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case. in short, is that on 29.8.86 at about 6 p.m. or so, the deceased Chandar Prajapati had gone to the house of his neighbour Jodhan Sao (P.W. 4) and after an hour or so, the informant after cooking meal came out of her house to call her husband. But in that process, she had seen her husband coming out from the house of Jodhan Sao, but he was apprehended by Lurka Prajapati in front of the house in the lane. Lurka caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Bhagwan Prajapati gave a chhura blow in the abdomen of the deceased. Due to that the deceased had fallen on the ground. On alarm, some witnesses also arrived and the deceased was immediately taken to Chatra sub-divisional hospital on a ricksaw in seriously injured condition. The attending doctor that is the Deputy Superintendent, Chatra hospital sensing the critical condition of the deceased sent requisition for recording of the dying declaration and the matter was also reported to the police. It is also the prosecution case that at about 9.30 or so Mr. William Minz Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the hospital in presence of the attending doctor, but the deceased in course of treatment died in the hospital on the next morning at about 8 a.m. 3. On the death of the deceased, again the matter was reported to the police by the hospital authorities. Then the police arrived and prepared the inquest, recorded the fardbayan of the informant who is the wife of the deceased in the hospital itself and then the dead body was sent for post mortem. After completing the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet as against this appellant and Lurka Prajapati. 4. The appellant claimed himself innocent and denied to have assaulted the deceased and it is his only defence that some unknown persons might have committed the murder of the deceased but the appellant had been implicated only out of previous enmity. After completing the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet as against this appellant and Lurka Prajapati. 4. The appellant claimed himself innocent and denied to have assaulted the deceased and it is his only defence that some unknown persons might have committed the murder of the deceased but the appellant had been implicated only out of previous enmity. The trial court believed the prosecution story so far the appellant is concerned and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. But the other co-accused Lurka Prajapati was acquitted for the reason that the deceased had not taken his name in his dying declaration. 5. The factum of murder of the deceased Chandra Prajapati, the husband of the informant, has not been challenged. The appellant simply denied his participation. However, in order to prove the case, on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined, but P.W. 2 Kailash Prajapati and P.W. 4 Jodhan Sao who were hearsay witnesses had not supported the prosecution case in full. So they were declared hostile. However, P.W. 1 Sahodri Devi, the sole eye-witness and the wife of the deceased is definitely an important witness to prove the entire occurrence. According to P.W. 1, at the relevant time i.e. on 29.8.86 she was cooking meal in her house situated in mohalla Bind within Chatra town. Her husband had gone to the house of his neighbour Jodhan Sao (P.W. 4) and when she came out after cooking meal, to call her husband, she found her husband coming towards the house, but in the intervening lane. he was apprehended by Lurka Prajapati and Lurka caught hold of him and the appellant gave a knife blow on the abdomen causing serious bleeding injuries. So she rushed to that place and removed the knife and alarm was raised and even she brought her injured husband to hospital. It is also her evidence that in the hospital while the treatment was going' on, on the requisition of the doctor, a Magistrate came and recorded the dying declaration of her husband. But on the next day, her husband died due to injuries sustained by him on the previous evening. 6. It is also her evidence that in the hospital while the treatment was going' on, on the requisition of the doctor, a Magistrate came and recorded the dying declaration of her husband. But on the next day, her husband died due to injuries sustained by him on the previous evening. 6. The counsel for the appellant assailed the evidence of the sale eye-witness on various grounds mainly that the evidence of this witness is not at all worth reliable and it is not free from doubt because she exaggerated the entire version and implicated one Lurka Prajapati against whom she also got enmity and this is a strong circumstance to show that she is not truthful and it was contended that if the witness is not reliable and if the evidence is of the sole witness, then his evidence is liable to be rejected No doubt this witness is interested because she lost her husband and also there is enmity, but on this score alone, her evidence cannot be discarded as a whole and there is no two opinion that the conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the testimony of the sole witness if the witness is not wholly reliable. If the witness is wholly reliable, conviction can be recorded on the testimony of the solitary witness. But in view of the fact that she slightly exaggerated the occurrence due to her over-zealous tendency, definitely in order to record the conviction, corroboration is necessary. In the instant case, there is corroboration of the evidence and even P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were declared hostile also supported the prosecution case In part and they have admitted that the occurrence took place on 298.86 at about 7 p.m. in front of the house of the informant and their evidences support the evidence of P.W. 1 that this very occurrence took place in front of her house. 7. Evidence of P.W. 1 was also as sailed on the ground that admittedly it was dark night and in that situation more particularly when the witness became perplexed due to assault on her husband, she will not be able to identify the assailant, that too, within a very short span of time. No doubt, it was night at about 7 p.m., but at that time it was not a dark-pitched night because it was month of August. No doubt, it was night at about 7 p.m., but at that time it was not a dark-pitched night because it was month of August. Moreover, the occurrence took place in the lane in front of the house of the informant and the appellant is the known man and closely related to the witness because the appellant is her bhagina. In that situation, even if there is some darkness, the witness is in a position to identify the appellant. 8. The evidence of this witness also finds corroboration from the dying declaration. No doubt, the dying declaration itself is a very strong and good evidence and substantive piece of evidence and on the basis of dying declaration, the conviction can be safely recorded only on the principle that a man under immediate threat of death and under extreme agony is not expected to tell a lie and in all probability, he will disclose the truth. In the instant case, immediately after the occurrence, P.W. 7 Mr. William Minz came to the hospital and he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, at about 9.30 p.m. i.e. Ext. 6. The Magistrate has clearly stated that he recorded the statement as stated by the deceased and Ext. 6 also indicates that the Magistrate recorded the statement as stated by the deceased himself and details about the assault and the place of assault were also given. The Magistrate had also given a certificate in Ext. 6 also and he had also stated in his evidence that at time of his statement, the deceased was fully conscious and he was in a position to give statement. 9. The evidence of the Magistrate, itself, clearly indicated that he recorded dying declaration as required under the law. But by way of extra precaution, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the attending doctor who has figured as P.W. 5 Dr. Gopi Nath Singh. From the evidence of this doctor, it is clear that he sent a requisition for recording of the dying declaration and dying declaration was recorded in his presence and at that time, the deceased was fully conscious and he was in a position to make the statement, of the deceased who had also stated that appellant assaulted him by knife. He has further stated that the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration correctly and he also made endorsement. He has further stated that the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration correctly and he also made endorsement. So the evidence of the attending doctor fully supports the prosecution case that the deceased made a dying declaration before the Magistrate voluntarily and while he was fully conscious and aware of the fact that he is making dying declaration. 10. If the dying declaration is to be accepted, and there is nothing in the record to reject the dying declaration, then it can be said without any doubt that the appellant due to previous enmity on 29.8.96 gave a knife blow on the vital part of the body of the deceased, that is, on the abdomen and the evidence of the doctor, who held post mortem examination also indicates that the injury was serious and it was given with the sole intention to commit the murder. 11. So from the dying declaration, itself, which is definitely recorded properly, and when the deceased was fully conscious and that too in presence of the doctor this occurrence is definitely well proved. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the dying declaration the signature or thumb impression of the deceased had not been obtained, but for that there is ample explanation and the recording Magistrate, Sir William Minz has himself stated in his evidence that at that time, the deceased was not in a position to make signature, so his signature was not obtained. Thus, the dying declaration clearly proves the case as alleged by, the prosecution. Moreover, there is evidence of the solitary eye-witness, that is, P.W. 1 as discussed above which also clearly proves that this very appellant only out of enmity gave a knife blow with the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. 12. Thus, the dying declaration clearly proves the case as alleged by, the prosecution. Moreover, there is evidence of the solitary eye-witness, that is, P.W. 1 as discussed above which also clearly proves that this very appellant only out of enmity gave a knife blow with the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. 12. No doubt it is the defence that the appellant has been implicated only out of previous enmity and in support of this contention, certified copy of some complaint petitions were filed to show that in the year 1984, a complaint case was filed by the father of the appellant as against the deceased and another complaint case was filed by the son-in-law of the informant as against the father of the deceased, but these documents, on the other, lend support to the prosecution case and the motive is well proved that only out of enmity, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. 13. So, from the discussions made above, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as such we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the trial court without any delay failing which the trial court will take step for his apprehension for undergoing the remaining part of his imprisonment.