Point of Law : Power of an Appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. [Para 42]

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur Sitting at Chintamani, in S.C. No. 48/2011 dated 27.09.2015, whereby acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860.

2. In this appeal, the State is seeking intervention and further seeking setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and consequently, accused be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860.

3. Heard learned HCGP for State and so also, learned counsel Sri Shashidhar, for respondent-Accused and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 48/2014 and also the evidence of PWs. 1 to 15, inclusive of Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 3 and so also the part of statement of Seethamma which is marked as Ex.D1.

4. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that accused, namely, Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy and deceased Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma were working as Mason since 5 years and deceased was the kept mistress of the accused. Both the deceased and accused were residing in the house of one R. Manjunatha at Kadiripalya of Shidlaghatta since 05 months and they were frequently quarrelling. On 24-12-2013 at about 10.30 p.m. when the deceased Munirathnamma was sleeping in the house, accused went there, picked up quarell with her, abused her in filthy language by telling that she has cheated him by having illicit relationship with some other person and saying so, accused poured kerosene over her person from the kerosene can and set her ablaze and ran away. As a result of which, she has sustained with the burn injuries. Thereafter, on filing of complaint by PW-1 as per Ex.P1, criminal law was set into motion by registration of crime in Cr. No. 128/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequent to setting the criminal law into motion by recording the FIR, the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and recorded the statements. But on 29-12-2013, deceased Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma succumbed to the injuries in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore when she was on treatment. When her brother PW-1 Manjunath has filed a complaint relating to the death of his sister and based upon the complaint, offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has been invoked in the aforesaid FIR registered by the police relating to the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the accused. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer taken up further investigation and investigated the case thoroughly. During the investigation, the Investigation officer has conducted spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, inquest mahazar over the dead body of the deceased and also the doctor has conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM report.

5. The deceased Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma has given dying declaration and the same has been recorded by PW-15 Tahasildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate and so also recorded the statement of witnesses and complied the stipulated condition of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and laid the charge sheet against the accused person before the committal Court in C.C. No. 140/2014. Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet by the investigating officer against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Subsequently, the Sessions Court by assigning number to the case in S.C. No. 48/2014 secured the accused for facing of trial.

6. Subsequently, the Sessions Court having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel relating to Crime and having found prima-facie that there are certain materials found in the charge-sheet laid by the IO to frame charge against the accused, had f