examination. As such the contention of the appellant that motive for commission of crime is not proved by the appellant is liable to be rejected. 12. It is an established principle of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. This Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar and another Vs. State of Madras6 has held that the court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by a statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and depends upon the judicial discretion. In other words, this Court has held that court would be considered with the quality and not the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or not proving a fact. 13. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind when we turn our attention to the testimony of eyewitness relied upon by the prosecution PW-2, it clearly fortifies the case of the prosecution. We find no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-2 as nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- 6 AIR 1957 SC 614 12