The court's decision hinged on the credibility of witness testimony in establishing accused No. 1's guilt under Section 498A IPC, despite discrepancies in the dying declaration.

N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 (accused 1 to 4) for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. We have heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Smt. Padmavathi, learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.

3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:

The marriage of first accused and Savithri @ Roopa. (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was performed on 11.2.2001. P.W. 1, Prabhakar is the elder brother of deceased, P.W. 2, Chinnamma is the mother of deceased and P.W. 3, Puttappa is the junior uncle of deceased. Accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1,accused No. 3 is the eider sister of accused No. 1 and accused No. 4 is the husband of accused No. 3.

It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused at Govindaraja Nagar, Bangalore, The accused, who had demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 40,000/- started ill-treating deceased to bring additional dowry. The deceased somehow endured the acts of accused. The deceased conceived and returned to her parental house for delivery and confinement. She gave birth to a female child, When the child was aged about eight months, P.W. 1, Prabhakar set up a house to the accused in Gottigere, Bangalore. Accused No. 1 was demanding deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. He used to come home in a drunken state and he was frequently assaulting deceased.

During the intervening night of 8/9.3.2008 at about 1.00 a.m., accused doused kerosene and set deceased on fire. The deceased was shifted to Victoria hospital and on 13.3.2003, she succumbed to burn injuries. On 9.3.2003, deceased had given a statement that accused had set her on fire. P.W. 1 lodged first information and set the law into motion. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for the aforestated offences.

4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 23 were examined, documents as per Exs. P1 to P13 were marked and material objects were marked as per M.Os. 1 and 2. On behalf of accused, his erstwhile employer namely, Ranganatha was examined as DW1.

5. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation, of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties acquitted accused of the aforestated offences. Therefore, the State is before us.

6. In this appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved that before marriage of accused No. 1 and the deceased, accused 1 to 4 demanded and accepted dowry of Rs. 40,000/- in relation to marriage of first accused and deceased?

(ii) Whether accused 1 to 4 were subjecting deceased to cruelty by making unlawful demands for money and that accused No. 1 was constantly ill-treating, harassing and assaulting deceased and thereby accused I to 4 committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC?

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 was subjecting deceased to cruelty soon before her death?

(iv) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 1 set deceased on fire during the intervening night of 8/9.3.2008 with the intention and knowledge of committing murder of deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

(v) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference?

(vi) To what order?

The charge framed by the learned trial Judge against accused No. 1 indicates that accused No. 1 was charged with the allegation that accused No. 1 set the deceased on fire during intervening night of 8/9.03.2003. Therefore, we have formulated point No. 4 thought it is not found in the judgment of trial Court.

Point No. 1:

7. The close relatives of deceased are P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1, Prahhakar has deposed; that the marriage of his sister (deceased Roopa) wit