The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence must establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 03.01.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2011 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused being the husband of deceased subjected his wife to cruelty and committed the murder. Hence, the offences are punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The nutshell of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused and deceased took place 12 years ago and both of them were living with their two children in the ground floor room which was provided to them in the apartment by PW-23. On the previous day of the incident i.e. on 08.11.2010, the accused left the house to go to his native place Konnuru leaving his wife and children and brought his mother-in-law (PW-4) to his house and he left the house at 6 O' clock in the evening on 08.11.2010 and he came back early in the morning at 6 O' clock on the next day. On 09.11.2010 he came and told that he did not go to his village and he came back from Sirsi and told his wife and children to get ready to go to Mangaladevi Temple. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused took his wife to the terrace in the lift, abused her that since she is not having good character, it is better to die and saying so, he forcibly pushed the deceased from the third floor of the terrace. As a result of the same, the deceased-Hanumavva fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries on the forehead, both hands and other parts of the body. The injured was taken to the Unity Hospital, which is located near the apartment. Since there was no response, she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli where the injured died on 12.11.2010.

4. The Police have registered the case based on the complaint of PW-4 at the first instance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of Indian Penal Code and when the injured succumbed to the injuries, the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was invoked instead of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter investigation was taken up and charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case examined PWs. 1 to 25 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P18(a) and so also produced the material objects which were marked as M.Os.1 to 7. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The Court below recorded 313 statement of the accused and after hearing both the State Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and learned counsel for respondent-accused, acquitted the accused under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.

6. In the appeal, the main contention of the State is that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence of prosecution in the right perspective and the very finding of the trial Court is perverse. The State in the appeal would also contend that the learned Session Judge gave much importance to minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which would only go to show that the witnesses have deposed naturally and are not tutored. The learned trial Judge has failed to take note of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 23 who are independent witnesses and they have no reason to depose against the respondent- accused. Though their evidence is consistent and convincing, the learned trial Judge has discarded the same. PWs. 2 and 3 are chain witnesses. Though they have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider their evidence. PW-4, the mother of the deceased has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

7. Though learned counsel for the respondent-accused has argued that deceased sustained injuries, when she fell down in the bathroom, the same has not been substantiated by producing r