The presumption of innocence remains fortified by acquittal, necessitating compelling evidence for appeal success, especially in circumstantial cases.

JUDGMENT :

The State has filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2015, passed by the learned Prl.Sessions Judge, Mandya, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge's Court') in S.C.No.31/2014, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `the IPC').

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the accused and deceased Mahadevaswamy are the wife and husband respectively. Both of them were living in their house at Marasinganahalli Village, Mandya Taluk, within the limits of complainant-Police Station. The deceased was a drunker and always used to go to his house in a state of intoxication. He had not leave his habit despite several advises given to him by his parents and other elders. He always used to have scuffle with his wife i.e., accused. That being the case, on the date 31.07.2013, at about 6.12 a.m. the complainant Manju (PW-12/CW-1), who is the younger brother of deceased Mahadevaswamy, received a call to his cell phone from PW-2/CW-6 Papanna informing him that Mahadevaswamy was murdered in his house. The complainant went to the house of deceased at Marasinganahalli village and found the dead body of his brother Mahadevaswamy beneath the cot in the hall in a naked position and in a pool of blood. Accused who was his sister-in-law was at home and upon her enquiry, she revealed that since the deceased had come in an inebriated condition and there was a scuffle between them and since deceased pestered her to give her money to meet his expenses of liquor, she assaulted him with chopper, which resulted in his death. She also pleaded her brother-in-law that the matter should not be taken to the police and elders in the village to decide the matter. However, since it was killing of a person, the complainant lodged a complaint with the complainant police as per Ex.P-29. Having registered the same in their station Crime No.370/2013 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on 31.07.2013, at 10.00 a.m., the complainant-Police submitted a FIR to the Court and conducted investigation. After investigation, the complainant-Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

3. After perusing the materials placed before it and hearing both side, the Sessions Judge's Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held, wherein, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all twenty witnesses as PW-1 to PW-20, got produced and marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-45 and got produced Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-10. From the accused’s side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were got marked as exhibits.

4. After hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, by its judgment dated 18.11.2015, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant –State is represented by the learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor and respondent/accused is represented by her learned counsel. The learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent (accused) are physically appearing in the Court.

6. The Sessions Judge’s Court rec