JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in SC.No.40/2008, dated 4th day of November, 2010, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the daughter of Balraj by name Bindu was residing at Shayamapura Street in Nanjangud Village. On 27.3.2007 at about 6.00 pm., the accused Nos.1 to 9 with their common intention went near her house and abused her in a filthy language and asked her to marry accused No.1-Ravi and if she does not marry him, she should not marry anybody and also abused her stating “Gudashatti Mundi” and asked her go somewhere and die. With this background, due to humiliation, victim – Bindu made an attempt to commit suicide at 6.45 pm., in the first floor of her house by pouring kerosene and setting fire. Thereafter, she was taken to Nanjangud Hospital and subsequently, taken to K.R.Hospital, Mysore, but on 28.3.2007 at about 2.30 am., she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, a case was registered against accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 504, 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 9 appeared before the trial court and denied the charges leveled against them.

3. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os 1 to 5. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused persons.

4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 16 and out of PWs.1 to 16, PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15 are the material witnesses and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the trial judge has not considered the evidence of these material witnesses even though they have supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that PW.1 who found the injured and PW.2 who took the injured to the hospital, both have categorically deposed that they have shifted the injured to the hospital. PW.3 is the PC who took the FIR. PW.4 is the father and PW.5 is the mother. PW.13 is the Doctor and PW.14 is the Investigating Officer and PW.15 is the grand mother. The trial court has given the reasoning that the witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution are the interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be believed. The said approach of the trial court is erroneous. The learned HCGP mainly relied upon Ex.P1, the statement of injured which was allegedly made before the Doctor and the Police Inspector and contended that the same has to be treated as dying declaration. He submits that when there is a dying declaration of the victim, the trial judge ought not to have acquitted the accused persons.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that an incident had taken place at 6.00 pm., however, there is no material before the Court that an incident took place at 6.00 p.m., and none of the witnesses have spoken about the same. He would also submit that PW.2 in his evidence had categorically admitted that he alone took the injured to the hospital, but PW.1 claims that he also went along with PW.2 and there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. He would further contend that PWs.4 and 5 are the father and mother of the victim and their evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. Their evidence is also contrary to each other. It is elicited in their cross-examination that even the police had advised not to lodge any false complaint against the accused persons. Further, it is also emerged in their evidence that they had filed complaints against the accused baselessly and hence, the trial judge has rightly come to the conclusion that they are the interested witnesses. The evidence of PWs.13 and 14 also does not inspire confidence of the Court that victim herself has made statement before the police and th