IMPORTANT POINTS
It is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. However the Court has to keep it in mind the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 11.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 525/2013, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - State of Karnataka and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court insofar as the appellant - original accused no.1 is concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and consequently convicted the appellant herein - original accused no.1 for the aforesaid offences, original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal. However, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal insofar as original accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, original accused no.1 married the deceased, the daughter of PW3 & PW4 nine years ago, prior to the date of the incident. That the deceased was subjected to the mental cruelty and there was demand of dowry from the parents of the deceased Rekha. In that regard, mediation was also held and thereafter PW3 & PW4 gave Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 20,000/-on two occasions. On 24.06.2010 at about 9 p.m. in the matrimonial home, appellant herein - original accused no.1 took up quarrel with his wife Rekha (deceased) and at that time, he took kerosene and poured the same on her and lit the fire. The deceased was taken to the hospital. That based on the information, the investigating officer went to the hospital and recorded her statement on 27.06.2010 (Exhibit P-5). It is alleged that even earlier also on 25.06.2010, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the police (Exhibit D2). On conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the chargesheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore all of them came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.

2.1 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses and brought on record the documentary evidences including Exhibit P-5 - dying declaration and the medical evidence. That after closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, further statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Appellant herein - original accused no.1 examined himself as DW1 and also examined a witness as DW2. The accused relied upon the earlier statement of the deceased (Exhibit D2). That on appreciation of the evidence and not believing the dying declaration - Exhibit P5 and having found contradictions in two dying declarations Exhibit P5 and Exhibit D2, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offences for which they were tried.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the State of Karnataka preferred appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the order of judgment and order of acquittal insofar as the appellant herein - original accused no.1 is concerned and has convicted the appellant herein - original accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The judgment and order of acquittal for original accused nos. 2 & 3 has been confirmed by the High Court.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court reversing the judgment and order of acquittal and convicting the appellant herein - original accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 read with 34 of the IPC, original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court