The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of dowry harassment and related offenses.

JUDGMENT

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR,J. - These appeals are filed by the State through Yamanakaradi police station challenging the common judgment of acquittal dtd. 20/9/2016 passed in S.C.No.141/2014 and S.C.No.250/2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:

As per the case of the prosecution, about five years prior to the death, the marriage of the deceased Deepa who is the daughter of C.W.4 and sister of C.Ws.5, 10 and 11 was performed with accused No.1 who is the son of accused Nos.2 and 4 and brother of accused No.3. During the marriage, as per the demand sufficient dowry was paid in cash and kind. After the marriage, the deceased Deepa started to live in the house of the accused and later on accused started to harass the deceased, insisted her to bring gold and money from her parental house and they used to assault her. It is alleged that 2-3 days prior to the date of incident, the accused without any reason in respect of domestic work quarreled with the deceased and harassed her. It is further alleged that on 3/2/2014 at 10.30 a.m. when all the accused were there and when the deceased Deepa being fed up with the harassment extended to her by the accused started to go to her parental house. It is alleged that, at that time, accused No.1 holding her hand dragged her inside the house and all the accused poured kerosene on her, while accused No.4 lit the stick and set her fire. It is further case of the prosecution that, when the deceased started to scream, accused No.1 splashed water on her and thereafter accused Nos.1 and 4 on a scooter shifted her to Government Hospital, Paschapur and from there, she was shifted in the Tata Sumo to District Hospital, Belagavi. Later on the same day, she was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi. When the victim was shifted to Government Hospital, Belagavi, a requisition was sent to the concerned police and then the police came there and recorded the statement of the victim in the hospital. Meanwhile, the Taluk Executive Magistrate on the request of the police has recorded the dying declaration of the victim, who alleged that accused are the cause for her burn injuries. Then a crime was registered and investigation was undertaken by the investigating officer. Initially, the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC was incorporated and during the course of treatment, the victim did not respond to the treatment and succumbed because of the burn injuries in the KLE Hospital, Belagavi on 11/2/2014. As such, the offence under Sec. 302 of IPC came to be incorporated. The investigating officer has got done the inquest mahazar and also got done the postmortem and after recording the statement of the witnesses filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 304B, 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and under Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.Act' for short). Initially, the case was registered against all the accused and accused Nos.1 and 4 were arrested on 6/2/2014 and they were in custody till the conclusion of the trial. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 28/8/2014 and they were in custody till 4/3/2015 and 27/3/2015 respectively.

4. After committal, case against accused Nos.1 and 4 was registered in S.C.No.141/2014 and as accused Nos.2 and 3 were absconding, the case against them was spilt up in S.C.No.250/2015 and later on after securing their presence, their case was proceeded with. Since both the cases are arising out of the same crime and S.C.No.250/2015 spilt up case of S.C.No.141/2014, the common evidence came to be recorded by holding common trial. The accused were represented by their counsel.

5. After hearing the learned public prosecutor and the defence counsel, the charge under Ss. 498A, 304B and 302 r/w Sec. 34 of I