JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.03.1987 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar acquitting accused-respondent in Sessions Trial No.73 of 1985, who was tried for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

2. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that a First Information Report was lodged by informant Smt. Jayraji against the respondent Krishna Kumar Duggal, which was registered at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar under Section 302 I.P.C. with the averments that deceased Nirmala Duggal was married with the accused-respondent about 14 years before her death. At the time of marriage, the accused-respondent told that he was a engineer but after marriage it was revealed that he was not the engineer but merely a fitter in Small Arms Ordinance Factory, Kanpur Nagar. After the marriage, behaviour of accused was cruel towards the deceased and deceased had written various letters to her parents explaining the agony, anguish and merciless beating to her by husband/respondent. Respondent/husband was a man of bad character, having illicit relations with other woman.

3. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that once the deceased had lodged F.I.R. against the accused-respondent on account of his cruelty and torturing behaviour. During the fateful day of 28.09.1984, the accused-respondent had assaulted his wife and set her on fire, which resulted into severe burn injuries to her, ultimately, resulting in her death. With the intention of escaping the offence of murder, the accused-respondent lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Govind Nagar that deceased had committed suicide. Investigation was taken up by the concerned police station, I.O. visited the spot and prepared the site plan. No kerosene oil, petrol bottle or container, match box, stove or any other thing was found by the I.O. near the dead body of the deceased.

4. Thereafter, I.O. has prepared the inquest report and dead body was sent for post-mortem. Post-mortem report was prepared by the doctor, who found several injuries on the body of the deceased. Statement of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused-respondent under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. Charges were framed against the accused-respondent and prosecution examined 11 witness. Documentary evidence was also filed by the prosecution. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that false evidence has been led against him and he was falsely implicated in the case.

6. The accused-respondent examined five witnesses in defence. After hearing the parties, learned trail court reached to the conclusion that no offence is committed by the accused-respondent and the deceased had committed suicide, therefore, learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him.

7. Heard Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant.

8. On being summoned, the accused-person pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The offence for which accused was charged was triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the accused-respondents were committed to the Court of Sessions.

9. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent as mentioned above.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the order of acquittal is not justified in the eye of law as the prosecution had very well est