JUDGMENT : The appellant/accused preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2013 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Bellary (herein after referred to as the trial court), where under the accused/appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.2000/-and in default payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and ordered to suffer the sentence concurrently. 2. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional SPP Sri. V.M. Banakar for the respondent and perused the materials on record including the lower Court records. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC, contending that the accused assaulted his wife Smt.Tippamma with a grinding stone and his daughter Vishalakshi aged six months, with Onake and caused their death and he also assaulted his another daughter Kum.Devi/Devamma aged six years with Onake, with an intention to cause her death and voluntarily caused hurt, thereby he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC. After registering the case in Cr No. 22/2012 of Tekkalkote PS on the basis of the First information and holding investigation, charge sheet was filed. The committal Court took cognizance and committed the matter to the District and Sessions Court to try the case for the above said offences which in turn was made over to the Fast Track Court-I, Bellary to try and to dispose off. The presence of the accused was secured by the trial Court. The committal Court took cognizance and committed the matter to the District and Sessions Court to try the case for the above said offences which in turn was made over to the Fast Track Court-I, Bellary to try and to dispose off. The presence of the accused was secured by the trial Court. The accused denied all the charges leveled against him for the above said offences and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined in all 27 witnesses, got marked 21 documents and identified 7 material objects. The accused was questioned and his statement was recorded under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials available on record. The accused denied all such incriminating materials but has not chosen to lead any evidence in his defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred this appeal on several grounds. The learned advocate for appellant Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting him ignoring material contradictions in the evidence lead by the prosecution. The prosecution suppressed the material evidence and in spite of that, the trial Court chose to accept the evidence of the prosecution without any basis. The evidence of the prosecution and the materials placed before the trial Court are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused was ignored by the trial Court. It has also ignored the fact that the material witnesses examined to support the case of the prosecution have turned hostile. The finding of the trial Court to convict the accused is not based on sound Principles of Law and the evidence of the eyewitness i.e. PW22, is not sufficient to form an opinion regarding the guilt of the accused. The recovery of the material object is also not proved and under such circumstances, the trial Court should have acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt. The recovery of the material object is also not proved and under such circumstances, the trial Court should have acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt. Therefore he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the interest of justice and also to acquit the accused for the above said offences. 6. Per contra learned Additional SPP Sri. V.M. Banakar submitted that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The case made out by the prosecution is not based on circumstantial evidence but on the other hand, PW22 the eye witness has fully supported the case. Further the medical evidence also supports the contention of the prosecution and fully corroborates the version of the eye witness-PW22. Even after cross examination of the material witnesses by the learned advocate for the accused before the trial Court, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her version. All these clinching materials unmistakably prove the contention of the prosecution, as the accused is the author of the crime. The trial Court considered all such materials and came to the right conclusion, which do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he prays for confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by dismissing the appeal. 7. In view of the rival contentions, the points that would arise for our consideration are as under: (i) Whether the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be interfered with? (iii) What order? 8. In the light of the arguments addressed by the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP, we have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court. 9. The contention of the prosecution is that the accused being the husband of the deceased Tippamma was residing with her along with their two children i.e. Kum.Devi/Devamma aged 6 years and Vishalakshi aged 5 months. He used to pick up quarrel with his wife Tippamma, as he was insisting her to shift the residence to Bangalore, whereas Tippamma was not ready and willing to accompany him to Bangalore. He used to pick up quarrel with his wife Tippamma, as he was insisting her to shift the residence to Bangalore, whereas Tippamma was not ready and willing to accompany him to Bangalore. It is further the contention of the prosecution that on the intervening night 5/6th of May 2012 at 2.00 am, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife Tippamma and with an intention to cause her death assaulted with a grinding stone on her head, which has resulted in her death. At the same time, the accused assaulted his daughter Vishalakshi, a child aged 5 months with an Onake, which has resulted in her death. Further he also assaulted his daughter Kum.Devamma aged 6 years with the same Onake, which has caused hurt, thereby he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC. 10. PW1 the brother of the deceased filed the first information as per Ex.P1. The incident had taken place on 06.05.2012 at 2.00 am and the first information was lodged on the same day at 11.30 am. The first informant states that he received the information regarding the incident, as the same was informed to him by one Hussainappa and immediately he came to the spot and admitted the injured child Vishalakshi to Shiraguppa Government Hospital for treatment, but inspite of that, the child succumbed to the injuries. In the meantime, he received the information that his injured sister Tippamma and her daughter were being shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary in an ambulance. He along with his mother rushed to Bellary and found his injured sister and the child Devamma were being treated in emergency ward. At about 9.45 am, his sister Tippamma succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter the informant came to Tekkalkote police station and lodged the first information. Considering these sequence of event, it cannot be said that there is any delay in lodging first information or registering the FIR. 11. The earliest version in the first information was reiterated by PW1 in his evidence. He also stated regarding the ill-treatment meted to his sister Tippamma and also regarding the information received through Hussainappa telephonically and further the death of his sister Tippamma and her child Vishalakshi due to the injuries sustained by them as a result of the assault by the accused. He also speaks about the injuries sustained by the little girl Devamma. He also stated regarding the ill-treatment meted to his sister Tippamma and also regarding the information received through Hussainappa telephonically and further the death of his sister Tippamma and her child Vishalakshi due to the injuries sustained by them as a result of the assault by the accused. He also speaks about the injuries sustained by the little girl Devamma. It is pertinent to note that nothing has been elicited from this witness during cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused. But strangely it is suggested to the witness that his sister Tippamma was having stomach pain and acute dysentery and therefore she had died. Of course this suggestion was denied by the witness. 12. PW2 is the inquest pancha who speaks about the grievous injuries found on the body of the deceased Tippamma and drawing of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P3. 13. PW3 Yellamma is the mother of the deceased Tippamma, who also speaks about the ill-treatment meted by the accused to his wife Tippamma and receiving of the information regarding the incident by one Hussainappa and rushing to the hospital and seeing the injured and the deceased. During cross examination of this witness also, nothing has been elicited except putting the suggestion and getting the denial. Again it is suggested to the witness that her daughter-deceased Tippamma, was suffering from severe abdomen pain and it is the cause for her death. This witness also denied this suggestion. 14. PW4 the another relative of the deceased has also spoken regarding the ill-treatment meted to the deceased and receiving of the information regarding the commission of the offence by the accused. 15. PW5 and 7 are the relatives of the deceased, spoke about the injuries sustained by deceased Tippamma on her head and occipital region and the injuries sustained by Devamma on her face and chest and also causing of the death of Vishalakshi. 16. PW6 is the pancha witness to the spot panchanama Ex.P2, who had not supported the case of the prosecution regarding seizure of material object, even though he admitted that the spot panchanama Ex.P2 and inquest panchanama Ex.P4 were drawn in his presence. Therefore this witness was treated partially hostile and during cross examination, he admitted that the bloodstained Kavadi was found at the scene of the offence and the same was seized under the spot mahazar and identified the same as MO-1. 17. Therefore this witness was treated partially hostile and during cross examination, he admitted that the bloodstained Kavadi was found at the scene of the offence and the same was seized under the spot mahazar and identified the same as MO-1. 17. PW8 and 9 are the panchas to the seizure mahazar Ex.P5, but have not fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to seizure of Onake the weapon used in the commission of the offence and bloodstained shirt at the instance of the accused. 18. PW10 and 11 are the seizure mahazar witnesses to Ex.P6, where under bloodstained clothes of the deceased which are as per MO-5 to 7 were seized. These witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. 19. PW12 and 13 are the mother and brother of the accused. PW14 is their neighbor and naturally not supported the case of the prosecution. PW15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kum.Vishalakshi and the postmortem report as per Ex.P10, wherein contusion over left forehead and another contusion over right parietal area and bloodstains found on both nostrils are noted. Fracture of left frontal bone and right parietal bone of the skull is also noted. This witness opines that the death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of damage to vital cerebrum area, which is due to head injury caused. He further opined that if the deceased was assaulted with Onake, which is as per MO-3, the injury sustained by her could be caused and it may lead to her death. During cross examination of this witness, it is suggested by the learned advocate for the accused that deceased Vishalakshi had died due to dysentery, which is flatly denied by the witness and it is also suggested that the injury sustained by the deceased, could be caused as a result of fall on the stone from a height, which was also denied. 20. PW16 is another doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Tippamma and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P11 noting the external injuries as ‘18 cms suturing on left PTR with hairline fracture of left temporal bone and countercoup EDH on right PTR’. This witness gives opinion that injuries noted by him could be caused by the grinding stone viz., MO-2. This witness gives opinion that injuries noted by him could be caused by the grinding stone viz., MO-2. An attempt was made by the learned advocate for the accused during cross examination to get admission from the witness that such head injury could be caused by a fall into a gutter and coming into contact with hard substance. But all these suggestions were flatly denied by the witness. 21. PW17 and 18 are the official witnesses, who have issued Ex.P12-the letter issued by Town Panchayat, Tekkalkote and Ex.P13-the spot sketch, which are undisputed documents. 22. PW19 to 21 are the neighbors of the accused and naturally they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 23. The star witness to the case of the prosecution is PW22-the injured eye witness Devi/Devamma-the daughter of the deceased Tippamma and the accused. This witness is aged 6 years and the trial Court after satisfying about her capacity to understand the things and give rational answer, permitted her examination without administering oath. Initially this witness stated that she does not know where her mother and younger sister Vishalakshi are residing and also stated that she had received the injury when she had been to the school and had a fall. This witness was treated hostile and during cross examination by the learned public prosecutor, she virtually admitted the contention of the prosecution in toto. The witness admitted that her father had assaulted her with Onake and she started weeping. The demeanor of the witness is also noted by the trial Court. While recording the deposition, the witness stated that her father had also assaulted her mother and sister Vishalakshi who have died but strangely nothing has been elicited by her during cross examination except asking her as to how her mother and sister have died. Naturally, the witness who is of tender age, stated that she does not know how they have died and denied the suggestion that she was not taken to the hospital. There is absolutely no other cross examination about the incriminating evidence given against the accused by the witness. 24. PW24 is the doctor who treated the injured Devi/Devamma and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P19. There is absolutely no other cross examination about the incriminating evidence given against the accused by the witness. 24. PW24 is the doctor who treated the injured Devi/Devamma and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P19. As per this witness and also as per the wound certificate, the child had sustained lacerated wound over the left scalp parietal area measuring 4X1cmX ½ cm and another lacerated wound over the frontal region of forehead measuring 5cmX1cmX½cm which are simple in nature and might have caused by assaulting with Onake-MO1, which is a blunt object. During cross examination, it was suggested to the witness that such injuries could be caused if she falls on the stone like object. The witness denied the suggestion and states that if the child fell from a height and had sustained such injury, there should have been corresponding swelling near the injuries, there by denying the suggestion. Nothing has been elicited by the witness during cross examination to disbelieve his version. 25. PW26 and 27 are the investigating officers who have spoken to regarding the investigation conducted by them. It is pertinent to note that PW27 stated in his evidence that he had recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P20 and after securing the panchas, the accused had taken them to the place and shown the bloodstained shirt, broken piece of Onake near the pole, which were seized under the seizure mahazar Ex.P25. He identified these material objects as MO-3 and 4. Even though this witness was cross examined at length by the learned advocate for the accused, nothing could be elicited from him to disbelief his version regarding recovery of the incriminating materials MO-3 and 4 at the instance of the accused. No ill-will or motive is suggested against this official witness to disbelieve his version. 26. From the materials on record, it is clear that the prosecution is relying on the version of the injured eye witness PW22, who was aged 6 years. Her version was not shaken during cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the version of the child witness cannot be relied on to convict the accused, cannot be accepted. 27. We have the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police along with Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the version of the child witness cannot be relied on to convict the accused, cannot be accepted. 27. We have the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police along with Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 3559 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the competence of the child witness and acceptance of the evidence even in the absence of the oath being administered and held as under: “5…. A child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.” 28. In view of the clear position of law, the evidence of the injured eye witness PW22 inspires confidence in the mind of the Court even in the absence of the oath being administered to her. Even though the witness is of tender age, the trial Court clearly formed an opinion that the child witness is capable of understanding the questions put to her and give rational answer. Even though initially witness appears to have not supported the case of the prosecution and was treated hostile, during cross examination by learned public prosecutor, the witness appears to have given natural evidence with her emotional feeling. We should understand the feeling of the child aged 6 years, who was required to depose before the Court against her own father in the incident, where she had lost her mother and younger sister and she herself sustained injuries as a result of the gruesome act of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the version of this witness is a tutored version or that it is not believable. There is nothing on record to show that the version of this witness is a tutored version or that it is not believable. Therefore we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of the child witness who is an important witness deposed before the Court in a natural way. 29. Regarding the medical evidence, as already noted, we have evidence of PW15, who issued post mortem report-Ex.P10, and PW16, who issued post mortem report-Ex.P11 and also PW24 who issued wound certificate-Ex.P19. The injuries mentioned in these documents fully corroborate the version of PW22-the sole eye witness and the contention of the prosecution that the accused had assaulted the deceased Tippamma with MO-2 grinding stone and his daughter Vishlakshi and Devi/Devamma with MO-3 Onake. The injuries found on the person of the injured and the deceased correspond to the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. No possible defence was raised by the accused for the injuries found on the body of the deceased and the injured. On the other hand during cross examination, it was suggested to the witnesses that the deceased wife and the daughter were having stomach pain and died due to dysentery. Further an inconsistent defence was tried to be made out by suggesting that if they fall on the rough surface from the height such injuries could be sustained. The said suggestions put to the material witnesses were flatly denied and the accused has not probabalised his defence at all. 30. It is pertinent to note that the incident in question had occurred in the house where the accused resides. Admittedly the inmates of the house are only the accused, his wife that is deceased Tippamma and his two daughters that is deceased Vishalakshi and injured Devi/Devamma, who is examined as PW22. Under such circumstances, the accused should have explained as to how his wife and daughter sustained fatal injuries and one of the daughter sustained injuries, at the same time. 31. The case of the prosecution does not rest on the circumstantial evidence. It is based on the version of the injured eye witness-PW.22 which stands on the higher pedestal. The presence of this witness at the scene of offence is so natural and it was never disputed. 31. The case of the prosecution does not rest on the circumstantial evidence. It is based on the version of the injured eye witness-PW.22 which stands on the higher pedestal. The presence of this witness at the scene of offence is so natural and it was never disputed. When there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the version of the injured eye witness, the same is to be accepted. The version of this witness is corroborated by other materials as stated above and all these materials unmistakably points towards the accused as the author of the crime. Therefore we are of the opinion that the persecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution discharges its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and when it has to be held that the accused is liable for conviction, we have to consider as to whether the accused has taken any probable defence. But since there is no such defence, we are of the clear opinion that the accused is not entitled for benefit of doubt. 32. The trial Court has taken into account all these materials on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC and proceed to convict and sentence him as stated above. We have not found any reason to interfere with the same. Hence we answer the above point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.