Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The appellant Manish alias Bunti aged 24 years, was tried by the Court of Special Judge for SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Bikaner on the charge of murder of his cousin Manoj, aged 10 years. The learned Judge by the Judgment dated 112.1995 convicted the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month’s R.I. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that on 15.07.1993 at about 10 a.m., the appellant Manish visited the house of his aunty (mother’s sister). PW. 9 Manish and his deceased brother Manoj alias Monu were at the residence. The appellant visited them to his residence Both the brothers went to the house of the appellant in a taxi. The appellant gave Rs. 30/-to PW. 9 Manish alias Sonu for bringing sweets from market. PW. 9 Manish went to the market for purchasing sweets. He returned from the market at about 11 a.m. When he entered the house, he witnessed the appellant stabbing knife (Katari) in the abdomen of Manoj alias Monu. He raised voice, on which the appellant made assault on him as well. The appellant took his heels and escaped in the street. The injured Manoj alias Monu with knife in the abdomen also tried to chase him, but he fell down in the street. He took out Katar and threw away. The appellant lifted Katar and ran away. The incident attracted number of people round. The injured was immediately removed to the Hospital. An oral information of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Gangashahar Road, Bikaner at about 11.15 a.m. It was also disclosed by the informant PW. 9 Manish that the appellant was unemployed. He was also not taking interest in studies. His mother and father on number of occasions reprimanded him, thus, he was unhappy with them. The police registered a case for offence under Section 307 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. 3. The information of the unfortunate incident was given to PW. 10 Smt. Sushila, mother of the deceased. She also rushed to the hospital. The police recorded dying declaration of Manoj vide Exh P. 17. Manoj died at about 1.30 p.m., thus, case was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. The information of the unfortunate incident was given to PW. 10 Smt. Sushila, mother of the deceased. She also rushed to the hospital. The police recorded dying declaration of Manoj vide Exh P. 17. Manoj died at about 1.30 p.m., thus, case was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was arrested on the same day vide Exh. P. 12. In pursuance of the information given by him, a blood stained katar was recovered. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove its case. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against him. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial Court having found the charge proved convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 5. It is contended by Sh. Manoj Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no creditable evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. It is submitted that PW. 9 Manish is highly interested and partisan witness and as such no reliance ought to have been placed on his statement. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant had any motive to murder the deceased Manoj. In the alternate, it is submitted that since it is a case of single injury, it can be inferred that the appellant had no intention to commit murder of the deceased, at the most, he can be clothed with knowledge. Thus, conviction against him cannot travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC. He has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhera vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cr) 1230. On the other the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the trial Court. .6. It is not in dispute that deceased Manoj died of homicidal death. PW. 7 Dr. Girdhar Jaipal conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Manoj vide Exh. P. 9. He noticed following injuries on the body of the deceased Manoj : 1. Incised wound 4 x 2 cm. x ? depth 6.5 cm. .6. It is not in dispute that deceased Manoj died of homicidal death. PW. 7 Dr. Girdhar Jaipal conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Manoj vide Exh. P. 9. He noticed following injuries on the body of the deceased Manoj : 1. Incised wound 4 x 2 cm. x ? depth 6.5 cm. above he umbilicus across midline obliquely placed small intestine and omentum bulging through it. 2. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm. x ? depth on the back left side at middle 1/3 x 7-1/2” below the tip of left shoulder. Partially clotted dark coloured blood comes through the wound. 7. In his opinion, the deceased died due to hemorrhage caused by perforating abdominal injury. 8. Dealing with ocular evidence, PW. 9 Manish Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He identified the appellant as the son of his mother’s sister, namely, Usha, as such his cousin. He deposed that on the date of occurrence, the appellant visited their house at about 10 a.m. He offered him sweets, namely, Gulab Jamun. He also invited them to his residence for taking sweets. He alongwith the appellant and deceased brother Manoj went to his house in a taxi. The appellant gave him Rs. 30/-and asked him to bring sweets and beetles from the market. After purchased sweets and beetles, he returned to the house after about 15 to 20 months. As soon as he entered his house, he witnesses the appellant stabbing Manoj by Katar. He threw bag of sweets and raised voice. The appellant made assault on him and went out. He tried to chase him. His injured brother Manoj also came out of the house and fell down. He on his own took out Katar from the abdomen. There was profuse bleeding. The appellant took up the Katar and disappealed. Their cries attracted people around. His brother Manoj was removed to the hospital in a taxi. He straightaway went to the Police Station and made an oral report. Then he went to inform his mother at the Railway Hospital, where she was serving. He alongwith his mother rushed to the Hospital. The police had already arrived. After about an hour and half , injured Manoj succumbed to the injuries. He pleaded ignorance as to why the appellant killed his younger brother Manoj. Then he went to inform his mother at the Railway Hospital, where she was serving. He alongwith his mother rushed to the Hospital. The police had already arrived. After about an hour and half , injured Manoj succumbed to the injuries. He pleaded ignorance as to why the appellant killed his younger brother Manoj. He also stated that the incident was narrated by Manoj to his mother in the hospital. There is lengthy cross-examination, but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit his testimony. 9. The only criticism leveled against him is that it was unusual on his part of going to the Police Station instead of taking his brother to the hospital. There is no substance in the criticism. PW. 9 Manish Kumar had made arrangements for removing his deceased brother to the hospital and he thought it appropriate to inform the police quickly. In our opinion, presence of this witness at the place of occurrence was natural. On careful consideration of his evidence, we find the statement of his witness trustworthy. There is no reason to discredit his testimony. 10. PW. 10 Smt. Sushila is the mother of deceased Manoj. She deposed that Smt. Usha was his real younger sister. She identified the appellant Manish as the son of his younger sister Usha. She deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 10 she left the house to attend her duties in Railway Hospital, where she was serving as nurse. While she was on duty, his son PW. 9 Manish informed him about the unfortunate incident. She along with PW. 9 Manish rushed to PBM hospital in a taxi. She found her son Manoj lying on bed No. 13 in ward No. C of PBM Hospital. On enquiry from his injured son Manoj, it was disclosed that the appellant had taken him along with his brother to his house for providing sweets. He slept with him and abruptly stabbed Katar in his abdomen. He pleaded ignorance for unusual conduct of the appellant Manoj. In cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. 11. PW. 2 Ranjeet Kumar is maternal uncle of deceased Manoj. He deposed that deceased Manoj was his nephew. In cross-examination he admitted that there was no enmity between the deceased Manoj and the appellant Manish. He also stated that relations in both the families were cordial. 12. PW. In cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. 11. PW. 2 Ranjeet Kumar is maternal uncle of deceased Manoj. He deposed that deceased Manoj was his nephew. In cross-examination he admitted that there was no enmity between the deceased Manoj and the appellant Manish. He also stated that relations in both the families were cordial. 12. PW. 13 Teja Ram is the investigating officer. He stated that the appellant Manish alias Banty was arrested on 15.07.1993 vide Exh. P. 12. In pursuance of information given by him vide Exh. P. 14, Katar was recovered vide Exh. P. 10 in presence of motbirs PW. 11 Satya Narayan and PW. 8 Uda Ram. It was sealed and packed in packet “E” on the spot. As the link evidence has not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we do not consider it necessary to refer the same. Suffice it to say that as per the FSL report (Exh. P. 16), blood on the Katar has been found of human origin. The appellant has failed to give any explanation as to the recovery of blood stained Katar. 13. The learned Counsel has made good deal of argument that no motive or animus has been attributed to the appellant for committing murder of Manish. We agree with the learned Counsel that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to suggest motive or animus for the appellant to commit murder of Manoj. On the contrary, evidence shows that relations between the family of the deceased and the appellant were cordial. 14. Dealing with such contention, the Apex Court in the case of Meharban & Ors. vs. State of M.P., 1996 (10) SCC 615, observed that motive lies locked in the heart of a man, and so, it becomes difficult to know the same. It was further observed that failure to bring on record, any evidence regarding motive does not, however, weaken a prosecution case. 15. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1021 , the Apex Court held that the prosecution is not bound to prove motive. The Court observed as under : “The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. The Court observed as under : “The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the Court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate”. 16. In the case of Nachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 118 , the Apex Court held that failure of the prosecution to establish the motive for the crime committed by the accused does not mean that the entire prosecution case has to be thrown over-board. 17. In the instant case, there is no reason to discredit the ocular testimony of PW. 9 Manish Kumar. It has given entire narration of the incident. There is no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellant. His statement finds corroboration from the medical evidence. There is another incriminating circumstance against the appellant of recovery of blood stained katar. The appellant has failed to give any explanation for the possession of blood stained katar. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant beyond any manner of doubt. 18. Turning to the nature of the offence, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that PW. 7 Dr. Girdhar Jaipur has stated that the victim would not have died if proper treatment would have been made available to him in time. It is also submitted that it is a case of single injury, thus, the case against the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC. He has relied upon a decision of apex Court in the case of Bhera vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230 and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Gautam vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992 CrLR (Raj) 344. 19. From the evidence on record, there is nothing to show that the appellant had taken the deceased to his house with any ulterior motive. It appears that while PW. 9 Manish had gone out, something happened between deceased and the appellant which promoted him to stab him by Katar. This has happened all of a sudden. He has not repeated the blow. It appears that while PW. 9 Manish had gone out, something happened between deceased and the appellant which promoted him to stab him by Katar. This has happened all of a sudden. He has not repeated the blow. In these facts, it is difficult to held that the appellant gave blow with requisite intention of causing murder of deceased. In this view of the matter, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. In the circumstances of the present case, the appellant can at the most be clothed with knowledge. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be held guilty of murder. The offence would fall one, under Section 304 Part II. 20. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead he is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II and sentenced to 7 years’ R.I. Theappellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand forfeited. He shall surrender to undergo remaining part of sentence. The trial Court is directed to issue warrants of arrest against the appellant Manish alias Banti and send him to custody to undergo remaining part of sentence.