JUDGMENT :

P.N. Desai, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C. No. 95/2012, wherein the respondents/accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302, IPC r/w section 34 of IPC.

2. The briefcase of the prosecution is that:-

Accused No. 1 Nagaraju was married to one Roopa of Bujavalli village, eight years prior to the incident. After marriage, they left to Bengaluru, where accused No. 1 was running an autorickshaw. It is further contended that accused No. 1 started consuming alcohol and availed loan and started physically assaulting Roopa. They have got two children from the marriage. Thereafter, they shifted to different places viz., Bangalore, Channapatna and K.R. Pete and finally returned to their village Bujavalli and started residing there.

It is further case of the prosecution on 27.11.2011 at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased Roopa was in her house, her husband Nagaraju, accused No. 2 Boraiah and accused No. 3 Thimmaiah were sitting in front of her house. Then, after sometime, all the three accused came inside the house and accused No. 1 Nagaraju asked her as to any person visited the house in the afternoon, as informed to him by Bora. When she asked Bora as to why he is telling lie to her husband, accused No. 1 Nagaraju assaulted on her back with hand, when she tried to come out of the house, accused pushed her inside the house and accused No. 1 Nagaraju took a kerosene oil can, poured kerosene on her body, accused No. 2 tried to set her fire with a match stick. Subsequently, accused Bora threw a match stick on her body which caught fire. When she again tried to run away, accused closed the door. Then she screamed for help. The neighbourers viz., Chikkanna, Mayiboraiah and Kullashambu, opened the door and took her to District Hospital, Mandya for treatment. Thereafter, she was taken to K.R. Hospital, Mandya by her mother Sakamma and brother Ananda. Due to previous enmity , accused have committed the said act. In this regard, on 28.11.2011, ASI-PW-13 took the statement of Roopa between 12.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and registered a case in Cr. No. 283/2011 for the offences under sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34, IPC.

It is further case of the prosecution that PSI Jagadish took up further investigation, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex-P19 and seized M.Os. 1 to 3. Then the Circle Inspector took further investigation. In the mean-while, said Roopa died on 1.12.2011 at about 11.45 a.m. on account of burn injuries while undergoing treatment at K.R. Hospital, Mysore. Thereafter, the inquest panchanama was conducted. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and the articles were sent to FSL and on completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences stated above.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined sixteen witnesses as PWs-1 to 16 and got marked 21 documents as Exs-P1 to P31 and three M.O.s were identified as M.O.1 to M.O.3.

Thereafter, the statements of the accused as required under section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence against them in the prosecution witnesses. Accused have not adduced any defence evidence. After hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences stated above. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the State.

4. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of appellant-State argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on record; the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous; the Sessions Judge ignored the legal position and has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs-4 to 6 in its proper perspective; the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence of Doctor PW-3; learned Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving the dying declaration of the deceased recorded as per Ex-P7; there are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the said dying d