Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13-11-2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru City, in S.C. No. 110 of 2006.

The accused were tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Chandrakala married accused 1-Nagaraja on 6-11-2003 as per the customs prevailing in their community in the presence of the elders, relatives and friends of both the families.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother and father of the accused No. 1, respectively. Among them accused No. 3-Krishnamurthy has expired. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are brothers of accused No. 1.

The allegation of the prosecution is that prior to the marriage, the marriage talks took place in the presence of P.Ws. 6, 8, 9 and 10 regarding the marriage, wherein, the accused demanded dowry in terms of money of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 25 sovern gold and cash of Rs. 7,000/- apart from a TVS Victor Moped; parents of the deceased satisfied the demand of dowry of the accused and performed the marriage of the deceased with accused 1. After the marriage also the accused started demanding additional amount of dowry and started torturing the victim/Chandrakala both physically and mentally. On 31-8-2005 at about 6.00 p.m. all the accused with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased, started telling her that she should do coolie work and she will not be allowed to go to her parental place, so accused 2 caught hold her, accused 3 poured kerosene and accused 1 lit fire; as a result of which Chandrakala sustained burn injuries; immediately, after the incident the accused and others took her to RMV Hospital and thereafter to Victoria Hospital for treatment; the Police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of victim but at that point of time the accused has threatened the victim with dire consequences, if she discloses true facts; consequently, the deceased gave false information to Police as per Ex. P. 9 at the first instance.

The statement of the victim was recorded as per Ex. P. 9 at 1.35 a.m. on 1-9-2005 by the Police Constable (P.W. 17) in which the deceased has stated that she has suffered accidental burns. The said statement was registered in C. Mis. No. 349 of 2005 in Sanjaynagar Police Station. The statement has been recorded in the presence of the doctor, wherein he has certified that the victim was having consciousness and was in a fit condition to make the statement.

Subsequently, one more statement of the victim came to be recorded as per Ex. P. 10 at 5.00 p.m. on 1-9-2005 in the hospital by another Police Constable (P.W. 24) in the presence of Doctor (P.W. 20).

3. Ex. P. 10 was registered once again before the Sanjaynagar Police Station in Crime No. 343 of 2005 at 5.00 p.m. based on which the investigation commenced. P.W. 19 the Inspector of Police, has completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all, has examined 24 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits and 11 material objects; on behalf of the defence 3 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were got marked. However, 3rd witness i.e., D.W. 3 has not tendered himself for cross-examination and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly not relied upon the evidence of D.W. 3.

As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.

5. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, taking us through the entire materials on record submits that the Court below is not justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution based on Exs. P. 4 and P. 10; Ex. P. 4 reveals that it is the case of suicidal death; whereas, Ex. P. 10 reveals that it is a case of murder; according to him the earlier statements of the victim re