The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the prosecution must provide compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving conflicting dying declarations.

JUDGMENT

DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J. -

The present appellant as the State/complainant had initiated a criminal proceedings against the respondent arraigning him as accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') in the Court of learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Sessions Judge's Court') in S.C. No.149/2015. After the trial, the accused was acquitted of all the alleged offences. Seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dtd. 7/9/2016, the State has preferred the present appeal under Ss. 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.).

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution before the Sessions Judge Court was that, the accused, who is the present respondent herein, is the husband of deceased one Smt.Kavitha, (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') whose marriage was performed on 9/11/2011. After their marriage with each other, the accused was subjecting 'the deceased' to physical and mental cruelty. He was consuming alcohol everyday and used to quarrel with the deceased. He was assaulting her and also was abusing her in filthy language. That being the case, on the date 20/9/2014, the accused after consuming liquor came to his house and initiated quarrel with the deceased. While quarreling he poured kerosene on his wife and set fire on her. After some time, the accused himself shifted his wife to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, where she was admitted as an inpatient. While under treatment, on 26/9/2014, at 3.45 a.m. injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. It is also the prosecution case that after the injured was admitted to Victoria Hospital at Bengaluru, based upon MLC information received by them, the complainant-Police visited the hospital on 21/9/2014 at 2.15 a.m. and recorded the statement of the injured through its Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-13), however, it was registered in the complainant - Police Station in NCR No.402A/2014. Thereafter, the Special Tahasildar of K.R. Puram recorded one more statement of the injured on 22/9/2014, at 7.45 p.m. where, the injured was shown to have stated that it was her husband i.e., the accused who poured kerosene on her and put fire. As such, the said statement of the injured was registered in complainant - Police Station in their Station Crime No.544/2014 under Sec. 307 of IPC against the accused. Later, after the death of 'the deceased' as aforesaid, the complainant police recorded the statement of one Sri. Keshavamurthy Son of Narayanappa (PW-3), who is said to be the elder brother of the deceased on 26/9/2014 and included the same in their Station's existing Crime No.544/2014, which was for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the IPC and substituted the offence from Sec. 307 IPC to Sec. 302 of IPC and proceeded with investigation. After completing the investigation, the complainant police filed charge sheet against the sole accused (respondent herein) for the offence punishable under Ss. 498A and 302 of IPC.

3. 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 sixteen (16) witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked twentyone documents from Exs.P.1 to P.21(a) and one Material object M.O.1 was marked. Statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced as an Exhibit.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge's Court, by its impugned judgment dtd. 7/9/2016, acquitted the accused of the offences charged against him. Challenging the same, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant -State is being represented by the learned State Public Prosecutor and respondent is being represented by hi