Judgment :- A.K. BHATTACHARYA, J. (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1999 on 30.05.2001. (2.) Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 26.06.1997 at about 5.30 a.m. when the defacto complainants sole son Dinesh Chandra Roy, aged about 13 years, being accompanied by his maternal grandmother (P.W. 2) went to the river-bed of river Kumlai to tether cow, all on a sudden accused Amar Chandra Roy appeared there and stabbed him with a knife resulting in his hospitalisation at Jalpaiguri Hospital and therefrom to N.B.M.CandH., Siliguri where he succumbed to injuries on 12.07.1997. Hence, the accused was charged under section 326/304 IPC. (3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. and as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr.PC, is that no such incident took place and he has been falsely implicated in this case. (4.) Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the Learned Court below found the accused guilty under section 304(1) IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d. to S.I. for two years. (5.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal. (6.) All that now requires to be considered is whether the Learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. (7.) Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 are vital, others being formal. (8.) According to the evidence of P.W. 1 Smt. Bharati Roy (defacto complainant), about 3 years back in the month of Ashar when her son Dinesh along with her mother (P.W. 2) went to tether cow on the bank of river Kumlai at about 5.30 a.m., accused Amar due to enmity over land- dispute caused murder of her said son with a knife. On the hue and cry of her mother she rushed to the spot and found her son lying there with his intestine coming out. On her query, her son also mother informed that Amar Roy had stabbed him. On the hue and cry of her mother she rushed to the spot and found her son lying there with his intestine coming out. On her query, her son also mother informed that Amar Roy had stabbed him. On the query of Anil Roy (P.W. 4) and Phasal Roy who reached the P.O., victim and her mother replied that Amar Roy had stabbed him and fled away. The injured was brought to Dhupguri Hospital, therefrom to Jalpaiguri Hospital and then to North Bengal Medical College and Hospital where he expired. The matter was reported to Dhupguri P.S. at about 8/9.00 a.m. and the complaint (Ext. 1) was typed by Subhas Roy (P.W. 5) according to her instruction. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by P.Ws. 2 to 4. P.W. 2 Smt. Fuleswari Roy, sole eyewitness of the incident, went to the bank of river Kumlai with Dinesh to tether cow in the month of Ashar about 2/3 years ago and after tethering when both of them were returning, Amar Roy caught hold of Dinesh and started stabbing, as a result of which his body rolled on and fell in the river Kumlai and his intestine came out. There was profuse bleeding mixed with water. On hearing hue and cry P.W. 1 as also Phasal, Anil (P.W. 3) and Anukul (P.W. 4) rushed to the spot. She as also Dinesh told them about the incident. Amar fled away in the meantime. Dinesh was shifted to hospital. P.W. 3 Anil Roy on hearing the hue and cry of P.W. 2 rushed to the P.O. Anukul (P.W. 4) and Phasal also reached there. They found Dinesh with bleeding injuries lying in the water of river Kumlai and his intestine came out of the abdomen. On his query to Dinesh and P.W. 2, they came to learn that Amar Roy after causing murder and injuries immediately left the place. They brought the injured to Dhupguri Hospital in a rickshaw van. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 4 Anukul Roy who further stated that Dinesh expired after 10/12 days at N.B.M.CandH. P.W. 5 Subhash Chandra Roy while proceeding to his shop about three years back found some persons proceeding on weeping and on his query he came to learn that Amar Roy caused bleeding injuries on the person of Dinesh, aged about 12/13 years, with a knife. P.W. 5 Subhash Chandra Roy while proceeding to his shop about three years back found some persons proceeding on weeping and on his query he came to learn that Amar Roy caused bleeding injuries on the person of Dinesh, aged about 12/13 years, with a knife. On request of some persons he accompanied them to Dhupguri P.S. He scribed the petition of complaint according to the dictation of P.W. 1. P.W. 6 S.I. Ashim Kumar Ghosh drew up formal FIR (Ext. 2) on the basis of complaint lodged by P.W. 1, started Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 72/97 dated 27.06.1997 under section 326 IPC and endorsed the case to S.I. M. Ghosh (P.W. 8) for investigation. P.W. 7 Dr. Biswanath Kahali, Lecturer in the Department of F.S.M. of N.B.M.CandH. on holding postmortem examination over the dead body of the victim on 12.07.1997 found (1) one surgically interfered and stitched up and infected wound extending in right paramedian line (lower) extending from 2" above the level of right illiac fossa with giving away of stitches at most or the places with extensive pus and sloughs at places at the margin and near the floor of the wound which extended upto abdominal cavity, totaling the length being 7.5" X 4" to 5" (on reflection) and abdominal cavity deep, presence of seven remnant black silk stitches found and on further dissection and pressing of the track of the wound gastrointestinal track was found surgically attended in ten places, all being in lumen deep with adhesion of the loop in surgically attended area, (2) five incised penetrating wounds each measuring 1.4" x 0.5" x abdominal cavity deep after reflection of two black silk through and through stitches thereon on each case with evidences of partial healing, in a haphazard manner in right iliac fossa and umbilical. The injuries as noted in (2) were all caused by sharp-cutting weapon with pointed edge like knife, dagger, and the injuries noticed by him are sufficient to cause death of a person. Death, in his opinion, was due to the effects of and as a sequel of injuries as noted, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W. 8 S.I. Monoranjan Ghosh during the course of investigation visited the P.O., drew up sketch map with index (Ext. 4(coll)), examined witnesses and subsequently on receipt of information about death of the victim added section 304 IPC. P.W. 8 S.I. Monoranjan Ghosh during the course of investigation visited the P.O., drew up sketch map with index (Ext. 4(coll)), examined witnesses and subsequently on receipt of information about death of the victim added section 304 IPC. Due to his transfer from the said P.S. he handed over the case to the then O.C. P.W. 9 S.I. Subrata Bardhan (second I.O.) during the course of investigation collected P.M. report and SCD from Matigara P.S. and submitted charge-sheet against the accused under section 326/304 IPC. (9.) Mr. R.K. Ghosal, Learned counsel for the appellant, contended that since the case rests on the evidence of P.W. 2, alleged sole eyewitness, much importance should not be attached with it and as such the conviction and sentence of his client should not be sustained. (10.) The Court, as a general rule, can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, that unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute the Court should not insist upon corroboration except in cases where the nature of testimony of a single witness itself requires the same as a rule of prudence e.g., in the case of a child witness or witness in a position analogous to that of an accomplice, and that whether corroboration of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be three classes of witnesses viz (a) wholly reliable (b) wholly unreliable and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The question of corroboration arises only in case of the witness of the last category in which the court is called upon to be circumspect, as was held in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 . In the present case, the incident having taken place in presence of P.W. 2, she cannot exculpate the real offender. It is her specific evidence that on the query of P.W. 1 as also P.Ws. 3. 4 and Phasal who arrived at the spot on hearing her hue and cry, she and the victim informed them that accused Amar Roy caught hold of Dinesh and started stabbing as a result of which his body rolled and fell in the river Kumlai and his intestine came out which is buttressed by the testimony of P.Ws. 3, 4 and medical evidence of P.W. 7. 3, 4 and medical evidence of P.W. 7. (11.) Furthermore, as discussed earlier, it is the specific evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that on query of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4, P.W. 2 as also the victim informed them that accused Amar stabbed Dinesh with a knife and then fled away, which remains uncontroverted in their cross-examination. The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence, is based upon the legal maxim "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It has always to be kept in mind that though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that as the maker of the statement is not subjected to cross-examination, it is essential for the Court to insist that dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court is obliged to rule out the possibility of the statement being the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive or product of imagination. Before relying upon a dying declaration, the Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration as rule requiring corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence, as was observed in Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1814 . Here, there is no ground for disbelieving the above testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4, and accordingly this piece of evidence strengthens the Prosecution story and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. (12.) As regards motive, when a case rests on circumstantial evidence alone, normally motive behind the crime is looked at. The Prosecution is not to prove motive for it is known only to the accused, as was held in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021 . (12.) As regards motive, when a case rests on circumstantial evidence alone, normally motive behind the crime is looked at. The Prosecution is not to prove motive for it is known only to the accused, as was held in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021 . Men do not act wholly without motive and failure to discover the motive of offence does not signify the non-existence of the crime nor proof of motive is ever an indispensable factor for conviction, as was observed in Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1996 Cr.LJ 421 (SC). Here, it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was longstanding dispute over landed property between her father and the father of the accused Amar. Enmity between the accused and the victim is a double-edged weapon, as it may provide incentive for the crime and it may also provide reasons for falsely implicating the accused person. So, here, enmity between the accused and the victims family being active, the pique against the victim is understandable. (13.) In the premises, in the light of the above discussion, there is no infirmity with the findings of the Learned Court below and accordingly there being no material to interfere with the same, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Court below. (14.) Alamats. if any, be destroyed after the period appeal is over. (15.) Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent down at once to the Learned Court below. Appeal dismissed.