ORDER : 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4.12.2007 passed by Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.421 of 2006 confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC as recorded by the Additional Sessions-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Pattukkottai in S.C. No.144 of 2005. 2. The present case arises out of First Information Report lodged by PW.1/Ganesan at about 5.30 A.M. on 12.12.2004 with police station Orathanadu, District Thanjavur. PW.1 in his Report stated that after watching television on 11.12.2004 he slept in the shed of the Milk Producers' Union, that there were two temples - Shakti Vinayagar Temple and Bhadra Kaliamman Temple, in front of the shed and that the lights in those two temples were on. He further stated that at about 2.00 A.M. on 12.12.2004 he heard noise and he along with one Veerayan, who had also slept in the shed of the Milk Producers' Union went towards the temple. It was further stated that he saw the appellant hitting his younger brother Gunasekaran who was sleeping inside Ganesh temple, with a spade on his head. According to the report, they raised shouts whereupon the appellant ran away. It was further stated that when they went near they saw that Gunasekaran had a deep cut above his right ear and that he was dead. In this reporting, it was further stated that there were disputes between the deceased/Gunasekaran and the appellant/Pitchaivel and that the village people used to settle those disputes. 3. This information led to registration of crime. During the course of investigation, MO. No.1, namely, the spade which was used for giving blows to the deceased/Gunasekaran was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant. Clothes, namely, dhoti and shirt worn by the appellant at the time of incident were also recovered which subsequently on forensic examination were found to be having blood stains of the same blood group as that of the deceased/Gunasekaran. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. During the trial, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1/informant as also the other material on record. PW.1 reiterated his version as stated in the First Information Report. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. During the trial, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1/informant as also the other material on record. PW.1 reiterated his version as stated in the First Information Report. In his cross examination, it was not even suggested that PW.1 was not sleeping in the shed of the Milk Producers' Union or that there was insufficient light in and around the temple. The prosecution also relied upon Exhibit P.14, the spot panchnama and sketch, which disclosed that the shed of the Milk Producers' Union was quite close to the temple where the deceased was sleeping and there was nothing between these two structures. Reliance was also placed upon the fact that the blood group of the blood stains found on the clothes of the appellant did match with that of the deceased/Gunasekaran. PW.2/Veerayan, however, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. 5. Considering the entire material including the eye-witness account coming through PW.1, the Trial Court accepted the case of prosecution and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC imposing sentence of life imprisonment. The matter was carried further by the appellant by filing criminal appeal which came to be dismissed by the High Court by the judgment under appeal. The High Court observed that the testimony of the eye-witness/PW.1 completely inspired confidence. Relying upon his testimony, and so also the other material on record the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. In this appeal by special leave filed through Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended that the testimony of PW.1 suffered from number of infirmities. In her submission, the blood stained clothes of the witness were never produced on record which showed that PW.1 was not present as alleged. She also relied upon the fact that PW.2 had not supported the case of prosecution. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the view taken by the courts below and submitted that the case does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. We have gone through the record. In our view, the testimony of PW.1 completely inspires confidence. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the view taken by the courts below and submitted that the case does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. We have gone through the record. In our view, the testimony of PW.1 completely inspires confidence. The post-mortem indicates that there were as many as seven injuries suffered by the deceased including incised wounds. The eye-witness account of PW.1 that he heard the shouts in the dead of night at about 2.00 A.M. and, therefore, rushed to the temple is quite natural. Sketch (Exhibit P.14) shows that the shed of the Milk Producers' Union and the temple are quite close to each other without there being any structure in between. Soon after the receipt of the first injury, the deceased possibly had shouted which must have attracted the attention of PW.1. Additionally, there was nothing in the cross examination which could challenge the fact that he used to sleep in the shed of the Milk Producers' Union. In our view, PW.1 is, thus, a natural witness. It is well settled that the testimony of even a single witness can well be relied upon if it inspires confidence and is generally corroborated by material on record. In the instant case, two additional factors lend complete corroboration, firstly, the recovery of the spade at the instance of the present appellant and secondly, the clothes which were recovered from him also had blood stains having the same blood group as that of the deceased/Gunasekaran. Furthermore the reporting at 5:30 a.m. was also prompt, leaving out any chances of exaggeration. 8. In the circumstances, both the Courts below were completely right and justified in placing reliance on the eye-witness account coming through PW.1 which was well supported by the other materials on record. We, thus, find no infirmity in the view taken by the courts below. We, therefore, affirm the view taken by the High Court and dismiss the present appeal. The record indicates that the appellant was not given the facility of bail by this Court during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant shall serve the sentence awarded to him. 9. Before parting, we must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned Amicus Curiae. The record indicates that the appellant was not given the facility of bail by this Court during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant shall serve the sentence awarded to him. 9. Before parting, we must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned Amicus Curiae. We direct the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to pay to her a sum of Rs.10,000/- as remuneration for ably assisting this Court.