JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in S.C.No.18/2014. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar and also the learned Addl. SPP Sri. V. M. Banakar. 3. The factual matrix of the case as per the case of the prosecution is that; Deceased Hanamavva and accused were husband and wife. One year prior to the alleged incident, they came and started to reside at Nargund plot along with their children. Accused was a lorry driver and he used to go out of Nargund 3 to 4 days along with the lorry. At that time, the deceased used to reside along with her children. It is further case of the prosecution that, as and when the accused used to go to the house, he used to quarrel with the deceased by suspecting her character and chastity. In that light, on 19.11.2014 at about 4.00 am, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife Hanamavva by suspecting her character and chastity and in that quarrel accused, with an intention to cause the murder of his wife Hanamavva, assaulted her with an axe on the front and back portion of the neck and thereby he has committed her murder. The said incident was seen by both the children and the accused also remained in the house. When the door of the house was opened by the accused in the morning hours both the children went out and informed the neighbors about the incident. At that time, police also came and on the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.163/2013 of Nargund Police Station. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate after following the procedure and believing the charge sheet material has committed the said case to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took the cognizance and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined 20 witnesses and got marked 32 documents and also 11 material objects. The accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined 20 witnesses and got marked 32 documents and also 11 material objects. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material. Accused denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution but has not lead any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment the appellant/accused is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused strenuously contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to law, evidence and material placed on record. It is his further submission that the presence of PW7 and PW19 at the place of incident and they witnessing the alleged incident itself is doubtful. He further submitted that PW7 and PW19 are the child witnesses. When the case is resting on the deposition of the child witnesses, it must inspire confidence of the Court and there should not be any embellishment or improvement in the evidence of such witnesses and then only their evidence can be relied upon. PW19 in her evidence has clearly deposed during the course of cross-examination that there was darkness and that she has not seen anything and nothing was visible and she do not know what had happened during that night. The evidence of PW7 also stands on the same footing and she may not have seen the alleged incident and she has deposed only at the instance of the grand parents and the uncle. The trial Court without properly appreciating this fact has came to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Except the evidence of PW7, all other evidence that has been produced is only hearsay evidence. Under these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Except the evidence of PW7, all other evidence that has been produced is only hearsay evidence. Under these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is his further submission that there were other residential houses nearby the house of accused and if really the alleged incident has taken place as contended, the residents of neighboring houses might have heard the hue and cry and they might have come immediately after the incident. If that aspect is taken into consideration, then the alleged incident has not taken place in the manner in which the prosecution has put forth before the Court. 5. It is his submission that the alleged incident has taken place during the night hours and immediately after the incident, both PW7 and PW19 have slept in the house till morning and they have not disclosed the said fact. If really the alleged incident has taken place, as contended by the prosecution, they could not have slept and they could have gathered the people and informed the neighbors about the incident. It is further submitted that there are many discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and if all the aspects are taken into consideration, the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion. It is his submission that accused is the sole male member, already both PW7 and PW19 have attained the age of majority and nobody is there to lookafter them and in that light, he prayed this Court to take lenient view and lesser punishment may be imposed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence. 6. Per contra, the learned Addl. S.P.P. contended that there are two eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the presence of the accused in the house is also not denied. He further submitted that when the alleged incident has taken place, the accused was present in the house and when both accused and deceased are there in the house that itself is sufficient to hold that it is the accused who has committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that when the alleged incident has taken place, the accused was present in the house and when both accused and deceased are there in the house that itself is sufficient to hold that it is the accused who has committed the alleged offence. He also further submitted that PW7 is the eye witness to the alleged incident who had deposed that it is the accused who had assaulted the deceased with an axe on the front and back portion of the neck and caused the death. The deposition of PW2 repose confidence of the Court and nothing has been brought on record that the said witness is the tutored witness. In the absence of any such material the evidence of PW7, if it is taken into consideration, that inspires confidence of the Court to hold that it is the accused who has committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that immediately in the morning hours, the complainant came to the house and he has also seen the accused and the dead body and the accused was apprehended on the spot and no explanation has been made as to who has committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that the axe MO-1 has been seized from the place of the incident while drawing the spot mahazar. He further submitted that the neighbors and other witnesses including the eye witnesses deposed that the accused used to always quarrel with the deceased by suspecting her character doubting her chastity. On the date of the incident, the accused deeply assaulted the deceased with the axe, thereby causing death of the deceased. The said evidence which has been produced is rightly appreciated by the trial Court and has come to the right conclusion. There are no good grounds made out by the accused/appellant to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, the said judgment deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the records including the lower Court records. 8. The prosecution in order to establish the case got examined 21 witnesses. PW1, 3 and 4 are the inquest mahazar panchas. They have supported the case in so far as the inquest mahazar drawn, as per the Ex.P1. 8. The prosecution in order to establish the case got examined 21 witnesses. PW1, 3 and 4 are the inquest mahazar panchas. They have supported the case in so far as the inquest mahazar drawn, as per the Ex.P1. The burden of proving the case lies upon the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased Hanamavva died a homicidal death. If the evidence of PW1, 3 and 4 coupled with exhibit P1 is looked into, the deceased has sustained "deep incised chap wound on the left side of the neck and there is injury of carotied vessels, trachea and aesophagas and cut lacerated wound below the chin and one more cut injury on the backside of the neck". The doctor has also opined that the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock by deep incised wound. He has also given his opinion that the said injuries may be caused if a person has been assaulted with an axe MO-1 and the postmortem report exhibit P23 and P24 has also been placed on record and the material placed on record go to show that the deceased died a homicidal death. Be that as it may, even during the course of argument, the death of the deceased has not been doubted and has not been seriously disputed. Under such circumstances, it could be held that the prosecution has proved the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death. 9. In order to prove the fact that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased as and when he used to visit the house by suspecting her character and doubting her chastity, the prosecution got examined the witnesses PW5, 6 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19. In their evidence, they have deposed before the trial Court that the accused as and when used to visit the house, used to quarrel with deceased by suspecting her character, doubting her chastity and during the cross examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard their evidence. It is well settled proposition of law that when there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, their version cannot be discarded. In the instant case on hand PW7, 18 and 19 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. PW18 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been turned hostile. It is well settled proposition of law that when there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, their version cannot be discarded. In the instant case on hand PW7, 18 and 19 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. PW18 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been turned hostile. The existing evidence before the Court is that of PW7 and PW19 and during the course of examination-in-chief, PW19 has deposed that in the midnight, the accused and the deceased used to quarrel. He has heard the noise of hue and cry and when he woke up, the accused assaulted his mother with axe on her neck three times. But during the course of cross examination, he has deposed that on the date of incident, there was full dark in the room and nothing could be seen in the room. Admittedly, if this aspect is taken into consideration, then the evidence of PW19 is not trustworthy and reliable. But on close scrutiny of evidence of PW7 the said witness has clearly deposed that one week prior to the incident, the accused had quarreled with the deceased and on the date of the incident, the accused assaulted the deceased with axe in the night. On that night, herself, her children and the accused were all alone there and on the day at about 4.00 am, accused assaulted the deceased with axe and he has seen the said incident with his eyes and when his mother raised hue and cry, he woke up and saw the incident. He also deposed that on the spot her mother died and the accused kept the axe in the house and he slept and then they also slept. In the morning when the accused opened the door, they went out and informed the same to the neighbors. He further deposed that it is the accused who caused the murder of his mother. During the course of cross examination of the witness it is suggested that only at the instance of the grandparents and the uncle he is deposing but the same has been denied and other suggestions which have been made are denied. During the course of arguments it has been brought to the notice of this Court that only after hearing the scream he woke up and there was darkness in the room, nothing was visible. During the course of arguments it has been brought to the notice of this Court that only after hearing the scream he woke up and there was darkness in the room, nothing was visible. But, if entire evidence is taken in its latter and spirit, it is stray sentence that when he woke up, there was darkness in the room and nothing was visible. It will not go to the root of the case of the prosecution. If the said witness has deposed in detail with regard to the alleged incident is concerned, it is trite of the law that the deposition of the child witness is required to be scrutinized carefully. But in the case on hand his deposition is inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court and there is no embellishment or improvement and that the Court may refer the evidence only in case evidence on record show the spot scrutiny. The Court may reject his submission partly or fully, but on perusal of entire evidence of PW7, there is no embellishment or improvement. Even the suggestion which has been made, though he has deposed about the incident and only the said suggestion has been denied. On perusal of the deposition of PW7, though it discloses the fact that the said witness has not been tutored and no such inference can be drawn from the content of his deposition. This proposition of law is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another, (2011) 4 SCC 786 at paragraphs 7 to 14 and 23 and that it has been observed as under: "7.In Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, this Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of Evidence Act, 1872 and held that (AIR p.55, para 7) every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise. The Court further held as under: "11......it is desirable that Judges and Magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that, otherwise the credibility of the witness may be seriously affected, so much so, that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the Magistrate or Judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate." 8. In Mangoo v. State of M.P., this Court while dealing with the evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored. The Court must determine as to whether the child has been tutored or not. It can be ascertained by examining the evidence and from the contents thereof as to whether there are any traces of tutoring. 9. In Panchhi v. State of U.P., this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that "the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring." 10. In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra, this Court dealing with the child witness has observed as under: "10.'...7.000 The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of makebelieve. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is noobstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness.'*" 11. The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross-examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and wrong.The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by putting questions to him and even if no such questions had been put, it may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he fully understood the implications of what he was saying and whether he stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child witness must be able to understand the sanctity of giving evidence on oath and the import of the questions that were being put to him. (Vide: Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra.) 12. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master , this Court held that there is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature. 13. Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from untutored part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. (Vide: Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab.) 14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. 23. The Trial Court after taking note of rulings of various judgments of this Court as what are the essential requirements to accept the testimony of a child witness held as under: "In the present case, statement of child witness gets affirmed by the circumstances of the incident, facts and from the activities of the other witnesses carried out by them on reaching at the place of occurrence. Thus, on the basis of abovesaid law precedents, statement of witness Rannu Bai not being unreliable in my opinion are absolutely true and correct......Statement of child witness Rannu Bai gets affirmed by the statements of Munna and witness Hannu and from the medical evidence. Thus, on the basis of abovesaid law precedents, statement of witness Rannu Bai not being unreliable in my opinion are absolutely true and correct......Statement of child witness Rannu Bai gets affirmed by the statements of Munna and witness Hannu and from the medical evidence. Therefore, facts of the above-stated law precedents are not applicable to the present case." In view of the above, it is evident that the statement of Rannu Bai (P.W.1) is affirmed by the statements of other witnesses, proved circumstances and medical evidence. Her deposition being precise, concise, specific and vivid without any improvement or embroidery is worth acceptance in toto." 10. Keeping in view the ratio laid down, if the evidence of PW7 is perused the said evidence inspire the confidence of the Court that it is not hearsay or tutored witness and whatever has been seen has been deposed before the Court without there being any influence. The evidence of child eye witness is not required to be rejected per-se the Court has a rest of prudence. Under such circumstances, such evidence on close scrutiny thereof and reliability can be referred and conviction can be recorded. In this behalf we want to rely upon the decision in the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) AIR SC 1842 at paragraph 9 it has been observed as under: "9.The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher Court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make beliefs. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher Court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear his conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make beliefs. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness." 11. Taking into consideration the factual evidence that which has been proved that the said evidence clearly goes to show that it is the accused who suspected the character of the deceased and quarreled and assaulted with axe and caused the death of the deceased. Be that as it may, even the said evidence also corroborated with the evidence of PW5, 6, 11 and 12. They have also clearly deposed that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased by suspecting her character and chastity and they have also advised him. In that light, if the evidence which has been looked into, clearly depicts the fact that the accused suspected the character of the deceased and on the night of 19.11.2014, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and assaulted with axe. 'Be that as it may', even when the neighbors and police came, the accused was also present in the house and has not come up with any explanation, how the deceased died a homicidal death in his house. If really some other person had caused the death of the deceased, definitely, he could have tried to save the life of deceased and he could have filed a complaint. Even the chemical examination report exhibit P34 shows that MO1 was sustained with human blood and it is of 'B' group. 12. Though in the evidence of the prosecution, some of the witnesses partly turned hostile, but if their evidence is perused with care and caution, the said evidence which has been produced it will not go to the root of the case so as to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. 12. Though in the evidence of the prosecution, some of the witnesses partly turned hostile, but if their evidence is perused with care and caution, the said evidence which has been produced it will not go to the root of the case so as to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is well settled proposition of law that if there are two hypothesis in the case of the prosecution if any slightest doubt arises, then in such circumstances, accused will have the benefit of doubt so as to come to the conclusion based on the deposition of the witnesses. On perusal of entire record and information, any such evidence has been brought so as to doubt the case of the prosecution. Even though it has been suggested that accused has been falsely implicated in this case, but the son and daughter of the accused have come forward to depose as against accused who is none other than the father. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing to discard their evidence. Their evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of independent witness. In that light, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has come to the right conclusion, rightly convicted the accused. There are some minor contradictions in the evidence but the alleged incident has taken place on 19.11.2014 and the deposition of the witness has been recorded after one year. Under such circumstances, there will be slight discrepancies in the deposition of the witness because of long gap. If there are slight discrepancies in the deposition, it will not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and under such circumstances, the same can be ignored by accepting the major evidence which has been produced before the Court. In that light the accused has not made out any good grounds to allow the appeal. If there are slight discrepancies in the deposition, it will not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and under such circumstances, the same can be ignored by accepting the major evidence which has been produced before the Court. In that light the accused has not made out any good grounds to allow the appeal. Further during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant contended that they are minor children and nobody is there to lookafter them and some leniency can be shown in the sentence, but the prosecution clearly established the fact that the accused has committed murder of his wife and Court has convicted him under Section 302 of IPC, then under such circumstances, the Court will not have any other option but to convict the accused for life sentence or death sentence. In that light, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is not acceptable. 13. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court, the judgment of the trial Court is based on the evidence and material placed on record. There is no error or perversity in arriving at the conclusion and the same do not deserves to be interfered with. Hence the same is confirmed. We place on record the able assistance of Sri.V.M.Banakar for disposal of this case. The appeal is dismissed.