JUDGMENT : N.K.SUDHINDRARAO, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the IV Additional District Judge at Gulbarga in S.C.No.73/2010 dated 28.07.2010 wherein appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and was sentenced for imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to under to simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The complaint dated 20.11.2009 was lodged by one Chandranna S/o Sharanappa. Sangeeta is his daughter. She was given in marriage to one Mallikarjun i.e. appellant-accused, ten years prior to the date of incident and their marital life was cordial for sometime and thereafter it disrupted. His son-in-law was addicted to alcohol and was demanding for money from his wife. 3. The family maintenance was looked after by Sangeeta by doing tailoring work. Cruelty, torture and beating her had been regular by the husband. About 20 days prior to the incident, as his daughter was not feeling well, she had come along with her husband to complainant’s home and the complainant took her to doctor for treatment. When Sangeeta recovered from her bad health i.e. on 14.11.2009 Saturday she went back to marital house along with the children. On 20.11.2009 at 7.30 a.m. when complainant was returning home, his son Nagendra informed him that Sangeeta was done to death by her husband Mallikarjun by hitting with an axe and murdered her. This matter was informed to his son by Shivakumar over phone. The complainant secured his wife, son Nagendra, relatives Bheemaraya, Sabanna, Tarikashappa, Sharanappa and went in a jeep to the house of Sangeeta and when they entered the house they saw her dead body lying in a pool of blood. The dead body was bearing sustained cut marks of axe and there was severe bleeding. On enquiry, he came to know that her daughter was washing utensils at 7.00 a.m. and Mallikarjun in drunken state, hit his wife with an axe twice, inflicting fatal shots and she was done to death. 4. The dead body was bearing sustained cut marks of axe and there was severe bleeding. On enquiry, he came to know that her daughter was washing utensils at 7.00 a.m. and Mallikarjun in drunken state, hit his wife with an axe twice, inflicting fatal shots and she was done to death. 4. On the basis of the above said complaint being lodged by the father of the deceased, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.132/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of IPC. 5. The Investigating agency, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. The learned District Judge secured the presence of the accused. After hearing before the charge, ordered for framing the charges against the accused under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as seventeen witnesses and got marked seventeen documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17 and produced M.O.s1 to 12. The accused did not adduce defence evidence. The accused was also examined by the Court under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend before this Court that the evidence of PW8 the brother of the deceased would help to arrive at the conclusion that the dead body of Sangeeta was there lying in the house upto 5.30 and he wanted to drive a point that if that has to be accepted the other versions of the entire witnesses including the doctor, Investigating Officer has to be disbelieved. He submits that the trial Judge has not appreciated the witnesses in its proper perspective and that this Court has to look into the materials once again and has to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and hence he pleaded for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and for acquittal of the appellant/accused. 9. Per contra, learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witness who is none other than the daughter of the accused and deceased aged nine years. There is absolutely no evidence elucidated from the cross-examination of the said witness as to why this witness has to be disbelieved. Coupled with the evidence of the doctor who has stated about the homicidal death of the deceased and the nature of the weapon used by the accused. Therefore, it is clear cut case of a murder done by the accused. Therefore, there is no room for this Court to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 10. On careful reevaluation of the evidence on record and also bearing in mind the submissions made as noted above, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: Whether the appellant has made out any reasonable or substantial ground or establishes a circumstance sufficient enough to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in any manner? 11. In order to answer to the above said point for consideration, it is just and necessary for us to have a brief cursory over the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. 12. PWs1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the cluster of eye-witness and circumstantial witness. As the evidence spoken by the witnesses other than PWs5 and 6 are circumstantial wherein PW-6 is a nine years old daughter of accused and the deceased and PW5 is the complainant Chandranna. 13. Insofar as PW1 Mallikarjun is concerned he is witness of seizing M.O.1 to M.O.4. PW-2 Iranna is a mahazar witness. PW-3 Darmu is a mahazar witness for seizure of clothes that was found on the deceased at the time of her death under mahazar Ex.P-3. PW-4 Rukum Patel is the mahazar witness for the recovery of the weapon axe but he turned hostile to the prosecution. PW-2 Iranna is a mahazar witness. PW-3 Darmu is a mahazar witness for seizure of clothes that was found on the deceased at the time of her death under mahazar Ex.P-3. PW-4 Rukum Patel is the mahazar witness for the recovery of the weapon axe but he turned hostile to the prosecution. PW-7 Padmavati is the elder sister of the accused. She is also examined as a witness for a particular circumstance. PW8 Shivakumar younger brother of the accused. He is a circumstantial witness. PW-9 Shamsuddin is the Junior Engineer who has drawn the sketch Ex.P8. Nagendra the younger brother of the deceased examined as PW-10 who is also a circumstantial witness. PW11 Sanjeevkumar is the Police SubInspector who was examined for having registered the criminal case in Crime No.132/2009 against the accused. PW-12 Pulikeshi is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation having taken it from PW11. PW-13 Shivasharanappa is the Police Constable who has carried the F.I.R. and the complaint to the jurisdictional Court. PW-14 is Dr. Sanganbasappa who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sangeeta. PW-15 Vijaykumar is a pancha witness. 14. Since the offence includes murder as defined under Section 300 of IPC and punishable under Section 302 of IPC, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish that the death of Sangeeta on 20.11.2009 at 7.30 a.m. was not a natural one but homicidal. 15. In this connection, the first document Ex.P9 complaint is lodged by the father of the deceased on 20.11.2009 describing homicidal death of his daughter Sangeeta. Inquest mahazar Ex.P-2 on the same date reflects that the dead body was having external injures and postmortem report described the external injuries and the cause of death is due to neurogenic shock due to injury to the spinal cord and the relative evidence by the doctor who conducted postmortem and same being considered by the learned trial judge who has rightly held that the death of Sangeeta was homicidal and not natural. 16. 16. Having established homicidal death of Sangeeta, it is also incumbent on the part of the prosecution that the appellant-accused Mallikarjun being the husband of deceased Sangeeta, in his house in intoxicated position raised quarrel with his wife and hit her with an axe and hit on her neck, sufficient enough to believe and confirm at the first sight that she was bound to die with such injuries. In this connection, though 17 witnesses are examined as cited above, in fact, 16 of them are not the eye-witnesses who have seen the incident. The material witness to this case is the daughter of the accused and the deceased i.e. PW-6 Priyanka. PW-17 is a Constable who was examined for having carried the dead body for postmortem. Moreover in the context the presence or absence of the dead body upto 5.30 viewed from any angle does not have any bearing or significance on the case either regarding innocence or guilt. 17. Two children were born to Sangeeta and accused Mallikarjun through their wedlock and the first one is PW-6-Priyanka who was examined during inquest mahazar dated 20.11.2009 and also as a prosecution witness and her evidence runs in the same line and she was examined before the court on 18.06.2010 wherein the learned trial Judge examined her competency to give evidence and also thinking power and allowed the public prosecutor to conduct the chief examination. 18. This girl of nine years tells the Court that her mother is Sangeeta and father is Mallikarjun and her younger sister is one Lalita. Her mother is dead. Her father killed her mother by an axe and at the time of the incident her mother was washing utensils. It was about 6.00 a.m. and her father hit three times with an axe on the neck. Her mother collapsed screaming “atthi” (mother-in-law) and fell on the ground. After seeing the incident she came out of the house and went to the house of one Padmavati which was behind their house. She does not know about the cause of quarrel. She specifically says that her mother was doing tailoring work as stated in the complaint by the complainant. She further states that her grand mother Parvati and uncle Shivakumar also came there. She identifies the axe in the open Court as M.O.-12. She was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. She specifically says that her mother was doing tailoring work as stated in the complaint by the complainant. She further states that her grand mother Parvati and uncle Shivakumar also came there. She identifies the axe in the open Court as M.O.-12. She was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. It is elicited from her cross-examination that she does not know when her father was coming in the night hours and she says that the inside room with bath room is dark. Her father was not in house before assaulting and she resists the cross-examination insofar as to confirm her version in corroborating the complaint, inquest mahazar and her statement. 19. The learned counsel at this point would submit that it was elicited form this girl that her father was not in the house before he assaulted to her mother. The contextual meaning of entire chief examination and cross-examination has to be seen, this particular sentence assumes little importance as the complainant does not say that he is the eye-witness, similarly, his son Nagendra and another sister. On the other hand, though the first degree relatives father, brother, sister, they did not come with deliberate intention of uttering that they saw the incident of murder. In substance, the version of all the witnesses is that accused and deceased were staying there. Their relationship though was cordial in the beginning, got miserable, wherein the husband dominated and tortured his wife, was chronic drunkard and was demanding money. He never worked let alone maintained the family. On the other hand, Sangeeta was compelled to do the job of tailoring and to maintain the family. This is adequately established by the complainant - her father, statement of the daughter who also contends that her mother was doing tailoring work. Almost all the witnesses have stated either pre-incident stage or post-incident stage. Spot mahazar, seizure of articles, seizure of weapon produced by the accused are all connected with the incident. 20. Insofar as the sister of the accused is concerned i.e. PW-7, her version is that on the date of incident PW-6 Priyanka ran to her and was weeping that her mother died. Further, she does not speak regarding the incident for the very reason that she was not present at that time. 20. Insofar as the sister of the accused is concerned i.e. PW-7, her version is that on the date of incident PW-6 Priyanka ran to her and was weeping that her mother died. Further, she does not speak regarding the incident for the very reason that she was not present at that time. Thus the evidence of PW-6 also to the effect that having seen the incident wherein her mother was done to death with a sharp edge caused by her father in threatened state of mind, she ran out of the house. Thus the assessment of evidence must be having regard to the substance and not the number of evidence. Further, the reliability of evidence never requires plurality of witnesses nor the witness become material because they are in majority. More particularly, unless the incident is seen by many number of persons or the version given by one witness does not bear corroboration, then the matter has to be considered having regard to yardstick. PW-6 is not a tuited witness as she is a child and was conscious that she was telling against her father about having lost her mother. The sequence of events spoken by her in the evidence are chronological does not bear the venture of exaggeration. If there was any other eye-witness and the said witness who had given their version nullify the version of PW6, then it would have been the case for searching corroboration. But in this case, it is death that occurred in a house wherein the accused and deceased and their children were staying. PW-6 is the elder daughter aged nine years. According to her she was examined even while examining her at the time of recording statement and at the time of inquest mahazar. She tells that she woke up and saw the incident and in that evidence she says that she woke up at 6.00 a.m. and nobody asked her to wake up because the two elders who were in the room or house are father and mother. Mother was done to death and father was in a killing mood. If PWs7, 8, 10, 13 had stated that version that they were present in the house, it would have made no sense, for the reasons that at that time i.e. in the morning 7.00 they were not the natural witnesses to be present there. Mother was done to death and father was in a killing mood. If PWs7, 8, 10, 13 had stated that version that they were present in the house, it would have made no sense, for the reasons that at that time i.e. in the morning 7.00 they were not the natural witnesses to be present there. Thus they speak only the version of the seeing the dead body of the deceased. 21. Insofar as the appreciation of evidence and its reassessment is concerned, it cannot be forgotten for a while that when the offence is established or defeated by a single witness it is sufficient because proof does not require a particular number of witness. On the other hand, even the witnesses were not material or eye-witness to an offence like murder or many times more than the eye-witnesses or witnesses, they cannot have a witting power. It is the eye-witness who is material. In this connection the Apex Court in the case of Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614 has observed thus: “Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye-witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye-witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other witnesses being present. Indeed, the courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence. It is open to the courts to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye-witness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye-witnesses. The instant case does not strictly fall within the category of those cases where only one witness is present and the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved by the statement of that witness alone. The instant case does not strictly fall within the category of those cases where only one witness is present and the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved by the statement of that witness alone. Here, three of the witnesses were produced but two of them turned hostile leaving the third alone and, therefore, on the principles already discussed, if the remaining eye-witness is found to be trustworthy, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict the accused.” 22. Regard being had to the fact that accused was a vagabond and was addicted to alcohol and he was inhibited man in his house. Under such circumstances, being the head of the family he was under an obligation and duty for telling if the entire world asked what happened to his wife and how come she was seen dead in his house as it is not a case wherein the dead body with serious injuries on the neck was abandoned in a forest or a highway or any abandon place. In this connection, it is necessary to peruse Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 23. It is clear that offence is nothing but commission of an illegal act or omission to comply legal duty. Behind every offence there will be an offender. It is the due process of substantive and procedural law are resorted by the courts for finding out whether the accused person is guilty or not. Further, there is no hard and fast rule prescribing minimum number of eye-witnesses or documents to prove a case. 24. Thus, any amount of analysis or appreciation of evidence would only reach one end i.e. the vital witness to the case is PW-6 and her status in the case is further important because in her relationship she represents accused and the deceased who are her parents and to her misfortunate her mother was done to death by her own father. 25. Under these circumstances, there is no shadow of doubt. However, there is no room to consider that the death of Sangeetha would have happened in any other manner, as this is a case wherein there was positive evidence available against the accused for having murdered his helpless wife and his daughter watching it. 25. Under these circumstances, there is no shadow of doubt. However, there is no room to consider that the death of Sangeetha would have happened in any other manner, as this is a case wherein there was positive evidence available against the accused for having murdered his helpless wife and his daughter watching it. Thus, on perusing the entire evidence and the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has murdered his wife with an axe. Appreciating the evidence that has come simultaneously against the accused for having posed cruelty and torture to his wife even up to the date of death of his wife which proves beyond shadow of doubt that the accused posed cruelty on his wife. This offence is within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 26. In the above said facts and circumstances, we answer the point formed by us in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in S.C.No.73/2010 dated 28.07.2010 is hereby confirmed. Learned District Judge to take steps to ascertain whether PW-6 and her sister are entitled to compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme and if so, to take suitable steps in that direction. We feel it necessary to place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Shivashankar H. Manur, learned counsel for the appellant in this matter for his presentation. The state legal services committee is directed to pay necessary Advocate’s fee to learned counsel Sri Shivashankar H. Manur.