Judgment :- Sabhahit, J 1. This appeal is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No269/05 on the file of Fast Track Court-III, Gulbarga, being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C. No.269/05 dated 31.7.2006 wherein accused Nos. 1 to 3, the appellants herein having found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 109 and 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 302 and in default of payment of fine it is ordered that accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one year and that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to set off of the period of detention undergone by them as under trial prisoners. 2. The essential of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows: 3. It is the case of the prosecution as alleged in the complaint filed by P.W.8 Smt Jambakka, W/o Narsappa, the deceased that she was staying with her husband Narasappa along with the children and was doing household work and also work in the land and were eaking out their livelihood. Her husband had four brothers. In the partition of the property belonged to the ancestor 20 acres of Masbu land and 5 guntas of paddy land fit for cultivation were allotted to her husband and the properties were divided in the presence of the panchas about ten years next before the date of complaint (20.7.2005) and her husband Narsappa was allotted 6 acres sandi land and 5 guntas land which was being cultivated (gadde land) and remaining property was given to the share of his brothers. The land which was allotted to the share of her husband being cultivated by himself and members of his family, the complainant and they were eaking out their livelihood out of the income from the said land. About 3 to 4 months before the date of complaint (20.7.2005) her brother-in-law Sabanna S/o Ningappa (accused No.2) and his sons accused Nos. The land which was allotted to the share of her husband being cultivated by himself and members of his family, the complainant and they were eaking out their livelihood out of the income from the said land. About 3 to 4 months before the date of complaint (20.7.2005) her brother-in-law Sabanna S/o Ningappa (accused No.2) and his sons accused Nos. 1 and 3 claimed their share and also the share of her husband Narsappa and are obstructing and were quarrelling with her husband and her husband had informed them that the said land has been allotted to his share in the partition and asserted his right. Even then accused had continued to quarrel with the Narsappa, husband of the complainant and on 20.7.2005 the elder son of Mahadevappa had taken sheep for grazing to the forest. Herself and her husband and her younger son Ningappa (PW.11) were present in the house. At that time accused No.2 alongwith his children accused No.2 alongwith his children accused Nos. 1 and 3 came to the house which is situated in the land and started quarreling asserting their share in the land that was allotted to Narsappa and also threatened that they will take the matter to the elders in the village and took her husband and she also accompanied her husband alongwith the accused. On the way the accused abused her husband and asked him as to why he was not giving the share in the property that was allotted to him and started quarreling with him and at 9.30 P.M. near Jambalamma temple of Taliberi road the accused Nos.1 to 3 started quarrelling with the Narsappa, Mahadevappa accused No.3 was armed with the axe, Sabanna was armed with the axe and has assaulted her husband on both of his legs and right shoulder and Sabanna, accused No1 who was armed with the spade assaulted on both the legs of Narsappa and her brother-in-law accused No.2 was instigating his sons accused Nos.1 and 3 that they should not leave Narsappa and he should be finished and was instigating them to assault Narsappa to finish him and at that time Narsappa had fallen down due to injury caused by assault with axe and spade by accused Nos.3 and 1 and they stamped on the body of Narsappa. The complainant and her son Ningappa (PW.11) were frightened and Narsappa became unconsicious, all the people who were assembled there, went away and they were sitting on the road going towards saidapur. At that time an autorickshaw came there and they stopped autorickshaw and her husband was taken to the hospital and Narsappa succumbed to the injuries and died on the way. They went to the police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.13. PW.17-PSI who was in the police station, Saidapur reduced to writing the oral complaint by P.W.8 Jambakka and registered the same in Crime No.81/05. He prepared FIR as per Ex.P.14 and sent the same to the jurisdictional Court and also sent copy of the FIR to his superiors and since dead body of Narsappa had been brought to the complainant he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Ningappa s/o Mareppa (PW.1) and P.W.2 Ningappa s/o Sabanna as per EX.P.3. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination through PW.10, police constable to primary health centre at Saidapur wherein PW.7 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Narsappa as per Ex.P.6. Thereafter he went to the spot along with panchas PWs.3 and 4 and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence as per EX.P4. He recorded the statement of PW.11 and other witnesses and deputed his staff to apprehend the accused. He received the information at about 4 P.M. that accused Nos.1 and 2 had been apprehended. He arrested them and subjected them to interrogation. Accused No.1 gave voluntary statement as per Ex.P.15 stating that he has concealed the weapon used by him for assault and if they come with him he will show the place where he concealed the weapon. He secured the panchas PWs. 5 and 6 and thereafter accused No.1 lead the panchas and the police near the borde of Duppalli near Jambalamma temple and took out the spade from the Jali bush which was in the halla and the same was seized as per MO.2 in the panchanama as per Ex.P.5. On the same day the constable who had taken the body for post mortem examination PW.9 returned with the clothes which was found on the body of the deceased and he seized the same under the panchanama as per Ex.P.1 in the presence of the panchas. On the same day the constable who had taken the body for post mortem examination PW.9 returned with the clothes which was found on the body of the deceased and he seized the same under the panchanama as per Ex.P.1 in the presence of the panchas. He got the sketch of the scene of offence prepared from the Engineer, PWD as per Ex.P.16. Further investigation in the case was handed over to PW.18 on 23.7.2005 who was working as CPI Gurumitkal circle. PW.18 verified the investigation already conducted. He recorded the further statement of the complainant. When he as in the Kadechur police station accused No.3 was produced before him and he went there and he arrested him and interrogated him and he gave voluntary statement to show the place where he concealed the weapon used by him in assaulting Narsappa. He recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.17. Thereafter in the presence of panchas PWs. 1 and 2 accused No.3 lead the police and panchas to his house and took out an axe and produced the same as per M.O.1 which was seized under panchanama Ex.P.2 He sent the seized weapons for opinion of the medical officer to furnish his opinion and opinion is furnished as per Ex.P.7 by PW.7 and after completing investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The case was committed to the Sessions Court since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed in S.C. No. 269/2005 and was made over to the Fast Tract Court-III, Gulbarga. The Learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Gulbarga, framed charge against accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I P.C. against accused Nos. 1 and 3 for offence under Section 302,109 r/w Section 34 IPC against accused No.2 for having abetted commission of offence of having caused the murder of Narsappa. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 18 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.17 (a) and M.Os 1 to 6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded. The defence of accused is one of denial and it is their case that a false complaint has been foisted against them. Accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 1 to 18 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.17 (a) and M.Os 1 to 6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is recorded. The defence of accused is one of denial and it is their case that a false complaint has been foisted against them. Accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Gulbarga, after hearing the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties by his judgment dated 31.7.2006 held that Narsappa suffered homicidal death and it was accused Nos.1 and 3 at the abatement of accused No.2 who committed murder of Narsappa and therefore the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused have committed offence punishable under Sections 109 and 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C and after hearing the accused sentenced accused Nos.1 to 3 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C in default of payment of fine directed that the accused shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one year and gave benefit of set off of period of sentence already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 3 are before this Court in this appeal. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and the reply arguments of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the prosecution has examined the sons and brother of the deceased as P.Ws.11 and 12 and PW.13 an independent eye witness and brother of the deceased PW.15 they have not supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence would show that PW.18 the complaint in this case was not in station and could not be at the spot of the scene of offence as she had gone to her parents house alongwith PW.11 as deposed by him and has suggested the witness that she has denied the same. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the investigation conducted by the investigation officer is defective as though he statements of the complainant and her sons would show that they have also sustained injuries, there were blood stains on their clothes and also in the autorickshaw of the PW.14 who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied that Narsappa has carried in his autorickshaw and investigation officer has not seized the blood stained clothes of the complainant and her son Ningappa, PW.11 nor any blood stains from the autorickshaw and the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that even if the evidence of PW.8 is relied upon and even if her presence is believed and her evidence would show that she is falsely implicating the accused due to motive as they had enemity against the accused as they were claiming right in the property that was allotted to Narsappa and therefore the evidence of PW.8 along even if it is believed cannot form the basis of conviction as the other eye witnesses have turned hostile and have no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 and the Trail Court was not justified in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offence for which they were charged. The Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs. JAGGO @ JAGDISH in support of his contention that it is the duty of the prosecution to collect all the material available against the accused and if there is any defect in the investigation as pointed out by him regarding non-seizure of blood stained cloth and blood stains from the autorickshaw and dispute regarding the spot where the incident took place the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the evidence of PW.8 is not truthful and reliable and is not supported by her own sons and brother-in-law and therefore her evidence cannot be made basis for bringing home the guilt of the accused as alleged by the prosecution and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court liable to be set aside and the accused are liable to be acquitted of the offences for which they were charged. 6. 6. The Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in response to the arguments of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PW.8 is truthful and reliable and is also cogent regarding the narration of the incident as stated in the complaint. PW.11 has supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief. However, in the cross examination which was not conducted on the same day i.e, on 16.6.2006 and cross examination done on 20.6.2006 the accused have won over PWs.11and 12 and therefore that PWs.11 and 12 are treated as hostile, their entire evidence Cannot be discharged to the extent that it supports to evidence of PW.8. The same would provide corroborative evidence to the evidence of Pw.8 with the complaint. In support of her contentions she had relied upon the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of RADHA MOHAN SINGH @ LAL SAHEB AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF U.P., wherein the witness had been examined in examination in chief and cross examined on the same day in part and had supported the prosecution and when the matter was adjourned to the next day the witness turned hostile and Supreme Court did not interfere with the portion of the evidence believed by the Trial Court and the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further submitted that even if the evidence of hostile witness is excluded the evidence of PW.8 is alone sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and she cannot be treated as interested witness merely because she happens to be the wife of the deceased and she is the most natural person to witness the incident and her evidence alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused as held by the Trial Court and defects in investigation cannot lead to acquittal of the accused with the evidence of the eye witness as truthful and reliable as any defect in the investigation would not affect the creditworthiness of the witnesses if they are found to be truthful and reliable. 8. 8. Having regard to the above said contentions the points that arise for our determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the finding of the Trail Court that the prosecution has proved Beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed Offence punishable under Sections 109 and 302 IPC/r/w Section 34 I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and the Sentence imposed thereon is justified or calls for interference in this Appeal? 2) What order? 9. We answer the above points as follows: 1) The finding of the Trial Court is justified. 2) In view of our answer to point No.1 appeal is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. 10. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Sessions Court comprising of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 18 and Exs. P.1 to P.17 (a) and appreciated the same in the light of principles laid down and the decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also the Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 11. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in this case. PWs. 1 and 2 are panchas of seizure mahazars Exs. P.2 and 3 and both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and were treated as hotile. PW.3 is a panch witness alongwith PW.4 for the spot mahazar and seizure of M.O.2 on the basis of voluntary statement given by accused No.3 and both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are permitted to be cross examined and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to support the case of the prosecution. 12. PW.5 is a panch to the mahazar Ex.P.5 regarding seizure of axe M.O.1, on the basis of the voluntary statement given by accused No.1 and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution and nothing has been elicited in his cross examination by the Public Prosecutor to support the case of the prosecution. PW.6 Basawaraj is also a panch to Ex.P.5 regarding seizure mahazar of MO.1, on the basis of the voluntary statement and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution and treated as hostile and his evidence is not reliable. PW.7 is the medical officer Dr. PW.6 Basawaraj is also a panch to Ex.P.5 regarding seizure mahazar of MO.1, on the basis of the voluntary statement and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution and treated as hostile and his evidence is not reliable. PW.7 is the medical officer Dr. Praveen Kumar, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Narsappa on 20.7.2005 and he has narrated the external injuries found on the body of Narsappa and internal injuries found on dissection and has stated that according to him the death was caused as a result of hemorrhage and shock due to injury to vital organs like left lung and he has issued the post mortem examination report as per Ex.P6. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence regarding conducting of the post mortem examination on the dead body of Narsappa and the fact that Narsappa suffered homicidal death and nothing has also been elicited to show that the contents of Ex.P6 are not correct. The fact that Narsappa died homicidal death is also not disputed as the defence is one of denial and they do not dispute the homicidal death and they have been falsely implicated and therefore having regard to the inquest report Ex.P3 and the evidence of PW.7 and post mortem report issued by him as per Ex.P.6 prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Narsappa suffered homicidal death and therefore the finding of the Trial Court that Narsappa suffered homicidal death is unassailable. However, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused must further prove that in furtherance of the abatement by accused No.2 his sons accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted and caused the murder of Narsappa to bring home the guilt of the accused and prosecution is relying upon the evidence of PW.8. The complainant in this case is mother or PWs.11 and 12 her brother in law PW.15 an independent witness PW.13 however unfortunately for the prosecution PWs. 11,12,13 and 15 have not supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. PW.9 is the police constable who carried the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Pw.10 is the constable who carried the dead body to PW.7 for post mortem examination. PW.14 is the owner of the autorickshaw who shifted the injured Narsappa in his autorickshaw. 11,12,13 and 15 have not supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. PW.9 is the police constable who carried the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Pw.10 is the constable who carried the dead body to PW.7 for post mortem examination. PW.14 is the owner of the autorickshaw who shifted the injured Narsappa in his autorickshaw. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied that injured Narsappa was carried in his autorickshaw on the date of incident and therefore evidence of PW.14 is not helpful to the prosecution. PW.16 Sabanna is a witness who has spoken to about the motive and is also an eye witness, but has also not supported the case of the prosecution, PWs. 17 and 18 are the investigating officers who have conducted the investigation as referred to above while narrating the facts of the case. 13. Before the Trial Court though the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses PWs. 8,11,12,13,15 and 16, PWs.13,15,and 16 have not at all supported the case of the prosecution and so far as PW.11, the son of the deceased and son of the complainant it is clear from the evidence of PW.11 that he supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief. However, in the cross examination he has turned hostile and has stated that himself and his mother Jambakka PW.8 were in Varkur village on the date of incident and has given a go bye to the version and he is permitted to be cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor and he has denied the suggestion that the accused have compromised with him saying that he cannot be given the land and they do not raise any dispute regarding the same. PW.12 who is another son of the deceased and complainant PW.8 has also not supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief and therefore there is no merit in the contention. We do not find any ground to accede to the submission of the Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. PW.12 who is another son of the deceased and complainant PW.8 has also not supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief and therefore there is no merit in the contention. We do not find any ground to accede to the submission of the Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. That PW.11 was examined in chief on 16.6.2006 and thereafter the Counsel appearing for the accused took time for cross examination and cross examination was conducted on 20.6.2006 and in the cross examination Pw.11 has been won over by the accused and therefore the portion of the evidence which is helpful to the prosecution would be believed and entire evidence cannot be discarded. The decision relied upon by the Learned Additional State public Prosecutor is not helpful to the State in the present case as in the said case the witness was examined and cross examined in part and has supported the case of the prosecution and when for want of time as the Court time was over he was cross examined, on the next day he turned hostile and supported the case in defence of the accused and to the extent the witness has supported the case of the prosecution in his examination in chief and cross examination on the first day both the Trial Court and the High Court relied upon his evidence and Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 of Constitution of India declined to interfere with the finding of the High Court and the Trail Court. However, in the present case though cross examination of Pws. 11 and 12 was deferred it is clear that mere fact that the cross examination was deferred and witnesses have not further supported the case of the prosecution in their cross examination and therefore they have been won over by the accused and therefore the evidence in examination in chief can be believed by ignoring the facts elicited in the cross examination cannot be done. As in the present case it is clear that Pw.11 has given a clear go-bye to the version given in examination in chief, in his cross examination and has denied the absence of not only himself and also his mother Jambakka. As in the present case it is clear that Pw.11 has given a clear go-bye to the version given in examination in chief, in his cross examination and has denied the absence of not only himself and also his mother Jambakka. The evidence of PW.11 would only goes to show that he has no regard for truth as he is not supporting the prosecution even though he is the son of the deceased and the co-Emplainant PW.8. However the said facts would not enable us to rely upon any portion of his evidence as he has been treated as hostile and cross examined by the prosecutor. Nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution and therefore the prosecution is left with the evidence of PW.8 the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Narsappa. 14. It is well settled that the prosecution can prove the guilt of the accused by adducing evidence of eye witnesses and even if the sole witness who has supported the case is found to be truthful, reliable and cogent and the presence of the witness at the spot and the fact that the witness has seen the incident is conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of eye witness can form the sole basis for conviction even it if is not corroborated by other material on record and in the light of the well settled principles, the evidence of PW.8 has to be appreciated. PW.8 the complainant has deposed in her examination in chief in consonance with the complaint filed by her as per Ex.P.13 and has narrated the incident and has spoken to about the overact as stated in her examination in chief and attributed overact to accused NOs.1 and 3 to the fact that accused No.2 who is the father of accused Nos. 1 and 3 was present and he was instigating accused Nos.2 and 3, his sons not to leave and to finish of Narsappa. 1 and 3 was present and he was instigating accused Nos.2 and 3, his sons not to leave and to finish of Narsappa. She has clearly stated in her examination in chief regarding the incident.That while accused Nos.1 to 3 came to their house and took her husband alongwith him saying that they will go to the elderly people in the village regarding the dispute about the share in the land allotted to Narsappa, near the Jambalamma temple accused No.3 assaulted with axe on her husband on his left and right forehands and on his shoulders on both the sides and accused No.1 assaulted her husband with the spade on both of the legs of Narsappa and her husband fell down and accused No.2 was present and was instigating accused Nos.1 and 3, his sons not to leave Narsappa and that he should be finished and further accused Nos.1 and 3 stamped on the body of Narsappa with her legs and thereafter she has stated that people who had assembled there went away being frightened by the act of the accused and they shifted Narsappa in the autorickshaw to the hospital and since Narsappa died on the way on the hospital, they went to the police station and filed complaints as per Ex.P.13. She has identified the clothes which were worn by the deceased as per M.Os.3 to 5 and also M.O.1 axe used by accused No.3 and spade used by accused No.1 She has further stated that she narrated the incident to the police and the same was reduced to writing and she has signed the complaint as per Ex.P.13(a). It is elicited in the cross examination of PW.8 that though there was partition of the properties amongst the brothers and they were living separately entries had not been made in the name of her husband. It is true that the land though was allotted to their share was near the border of Andhra Pradesh and the land of the accused is situated at a distance from the land which is allotted to her husband and the said land is at a distance of 6 kms. from Dupali village. It is true that the land though was allotted to their share was near the border of Andhra Pradesh and the land of the accused is situated at a distance from the land which is allotted to her husband and the said land is at a distance of 6 kms. from Dupali village. They were working in their land on the date of incident and other people were also working in their land at that time when they were at a distance of 50 feet from Jambalamma temple the incident occurred and 4 to 5 persons who were working in the adjacent land came there hearing the noise of galata. She cannot remember the names on the said persons who assembled there. Her husband fell down on the ground when accused No.3 Mahadevappa assaulted him. Accused No.3 assaulted her husband twice. She cannot tell as to how many times accused No.3 assaulted her husband. Accused No.3 assaulted with the axe on her husband and blood had oozed out of his body at the spot. At that time her son Ningappa PW.11 requested the accused not to assault his father and accused No.1 Sabanna slapped on the check of Pw.11. She could not count the number of assaults made by accused No.1 on her husband. She cannot tell as to how much exact times her husband was assaulted by the assaulted by the accused No.1 by axe and spade and when her husband fell down on the ground no persons in the neighbourhood have come there. She told her son Ningappa to go and bring the autorickshaw and Ningappa brought the autorickshaw and Narsappa was shifted to the hospital and part from her son Ningappa nobody was present when Narsappa was shifted to the hospital in the autorickshaw. She had not informed about the incident to the villagers while taking her husband to the hospital nor sent words to her son and her husband died on the way to the hospital and therefore they went directly to the police station in the autorickshaw alongwith the dead body of her husband and there were blood stains on the clothes worn by herself and her son Ningappa and also on the autorickshaw driver. Blood stains were also there in the autorickshaw. Blood stains were also there in the autorickshaw. Due to illiteracy and ignorance she cannot tell exact time they went to the police station and does not remember the name of the police officer who recorded the complaint. Police have also recorded the statement of Ningappa and the driver of the autorickshaw. The dead body of her husband was given to her on the date of incident at about 6 P.M and the dead body was taken to their village Saidapur. She does not remember as to whether she has stated in the complaint that the accused from the hind side of her husband had assaulted him as she was frightened and she has not stated in the complaint that when they were sitting on Saidapur side an authorickshaw. She has not stated in the complaint that on hearing her crying persons working near the land were assembled there. She has denied the suggestion that accused have not at all quarreled with Narsappa, she has not at all witnessed the incident and that she was at her parents village at Varkur and that she has not witnessed the incident and is deposing falsely. It is also elicited that her husband Narsappa had become blind due to defect in the eye sight. She has denied suggestion that he had developed enemies in the village and he has dispute with one Sabanna s/o Hanamantha Halegug regarding right of way and said Sabanna had developed enemity against the deceased. She has also denied the suggestion that her husband had given evidence in the said case and was arrayed as accused in the said case. She has also denied suggestion that Narsappa had number of enemies in the village. She has further denied the suggestion that she was not at all in the village on the date of death of Narsappa. She had gone to her parents house at Varkur. She does not know anything about the incident and she is deposing falsely due to enemity against the accused. 15. It is clear on appreciation of the above said evidence of the complainant PW.8 who is the wife of the deceased that apart from suggesting that her native place is Varkur and she had gone to her native place and has not witnessed the incident which has been denied by her. 15. It is clear on appreciation of the above said evidence of the complainant PW.8 who is the wife of the deceased that apart from suggesting that her native place is Varkur and she had gone to her native place and has not witnessed the incident which has been denied by her. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve her evidence that she was present on the spot alongwith her husband and that she has witnessed the incident as deposed by her. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that Ningappa was also present there, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has clearly stated in the evidence that he and his mother were present at the spot of incidence, as we have already referred to the evidence of PW.11 who is the son of deceased Narsappa and the complainant has no regard for truth and his evidence is neither truthful nor reliable and therefore no facts spoken to by him can be taken advantage of the prosecution or the defence. Further the other witnesses PWs. 12,13,15 and 18 have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution would not in any way affect evidence of PW.8 if her evidence is found to be truthful and reliable. It is clear on close scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence of PW.8 that her evidence is truthful and reliable and it not affected in any way by the fact that other witnesses PWs.11 and 12 her sons and her brother-in-law PW.15 and other eye witnesses Pws.13 and 18 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Mere fact that her blood stained clothes and the blood which had fallen in the autorickshaw and the fact that autorickshaw driver who has examined as P.W.14 has not supported the case of the prosecution would not affect her evidence as it is otherwise found to be truthful and reliable. 16. It is well settled that if there is any defect in the investigation in not collecting the evidence like blood stained clothes of the witnesses who had shifted Narsappa and also blood found in the autorickshaw as spoken to by PW.8 in this case would not in any way affect the case of the prosecution whose evidence is found to be truthful and reliable. Similarly, we are also not able to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that evidence of PW.8 even if found to be truthful and reliable and cogent and in consonance with the complaint given by her, her evidence cannot be made sole basis for bringing home the guilt of the accused in view of the well settled law that the proof of guilt of the accused does not depend upon the number of witness examined but the quality and credibility of the witness examined by the prosecution. PW.8 is the complainant the wife of Narsappa, the deceased. Her presence at the spot is established by the prosecution, and the fact that she has witnessed the incidence and she has narratd the incident clearly implicating all the accused and is found to be truthful and reliable and hence we hold that there is no impediment for us to base the evidence of PW.8 as the basis for conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charges of having committed offence and accordingly we hold that the finding of theTrial Court that Narsappa suffered homicidal death and he was murdered at provocation and abatement of accused NO.2 to his sons accused Nos.1 and 3, by accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulting Narsappa in furtherance of their common intention and thereby the accused have committed the offence for which they were charged and the sentence imposed by the accused is also justified and does not call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative and in that view the answer to point NO.2 is that he appeal is liable to be dismissed and we pass the following order: 17. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the Fast Tract Court-III, Gulbarga, in S.C. No.269/2005 dated 31.7.2006 is confirmed.