also the evidence of P.w. 12 investigating officer, who has categorically stated that he did record the statement of several witnesses including P.w. 1 and the witnesses have stated that the assault was committed by the present appellant. Merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be said that the entire prosecution story must fail. It is an established position in law that an uncorroborated testimony of an eye witness is sufficient for conviction, if the testimony is such which inspires confidence and is genuinely accepted as truthful. We have already recorded our finding that it is truthful. That takes us to the other contention of the learned counsel made only as an alternative submission that assuming it to be a case of stabbing by the appellant, it is a case where the stab occurred in a moment of heat of anger which having been enraged by the fact that his sister was being troubled by the victim. The quarrel started when the victim closing the tap which was being used by the sister of accused no.1. Though the case is trifle tempersome and in the heat of anger accused stabbed the victim. The evidence of P.w. 10 Dr. Ashok proved that it is a case of singular stab. In our opinion, in such circumstances, offence of committing murder would be attributed to the accused . At the same time from the evidence of P.w. 2, P.w. 10 and P.w. 12 it is obvious that accused had the knowledge that such stab blow may cause death. In our opinion, therefore the offence committed by the accused is punishable under section 304-I IPC being culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the assault having been made circumstantially without pre mediation. It is therefore necessary that we partly
