JUDGMENT :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

1. The appellant-State has preferred this D.B. Criminal Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 4, Kota, whereby accused-respondent was acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2001, Smt. Hema gave Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/19) to the Police alleging therein that she solemnized marriage with the accused-respondent four years ago. She also stated that her husband was in the habit of consuming liquor. She further stated that in the night of 04.06.2001 at about 10:30 P.M. her husband was consuming the liquor. When she stopped him from consuming the liquor, her husband became angry. He poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. The gate of the room was closed from inside and after setting her on fire, her husband ran away from the backside gate. After setting her on fire, when she shouted, her neighbours Ramphool, Prahlad and other men and women of the locality came there, who broken the gate and poured water to douse the fire. Thereafter, the police has reached there and got her admitted in the hospital. She further stated that her husband set her on fire with intention to kill her. She sustained burn injuries on her face, chest, both hands, stomach and both legs. On the basis of said Parcha Bayan, an FIR No. 197/2001 came to be registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota City for the offences under Sections 307 & 324 of IPC. During investigation, Smt. Hema died while undergoing treatment, upon which, the police added Section 302 IPC in the matter. After due investigation, the charge-sheet against accused-respondent Shiv Narain @ Guddu for the offence under Section 302 of IPC was filed before the court below. The court below framed charge of offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-respondent, upon which, he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case, produced as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Thereafter, explanation of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the accusation stating that the prosecution evidence was wrong. He stated that he along with Prahald and Ramphal were sitting outside. On hearing the shouting of Hema, they went running there. The gate of the house was closed, which was broken and they saw that Hema was burning. He tried to extinguish the fire and sustained burn injuries. In his defence, accused-respondent examined D.W. 1 - Dr. Ashok Mundra and exhibited Ex.D-1 to D-3 documents.

3. Learned court below after hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, passed the judgment and order dated 20.07.2002, acquitting the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State has contended that the prosecution has produced ample evidence against the accused-respondent in order to prove the charge against him beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that specific allegation of beating and setting on fire to the deceased have been levelled against the accused-respondent in the parcha bayan as well as dying declaration of the deceased, which have been proved in the evidence. He has also contended that deceased sustained 70% burn injuries in the said incident, on account of which she died while undergoing treatment. This fact would be proved from the postmortem report. But the court below has erred in not appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence alleged against him. He has, therefore, prayed that appeal of the appellant - State may be allowed and the accused-respondent may be convicted and sentenced for the offence alleged against him.

6. On the other hand, learne