The State 3 the appellant herein has preferred this appeal

being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed

in S.C.No.22/2009 dated 03.06.2011 by the Fast Track Court,

Kollegala, for the offence under sections 341, 354, 323, 504,

306 of IPC.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 12.06.2008 at

about 3.00 p.m., the Victim was standing in front of her house at

Kunthurmole village. The accused came near her house and

quarreled with her stating why she had quarreled with his wife in

the Sangha. The Accused further dragged her nighty and

caught her tuft and assaulted her with hands and also abused

her in filthy language. He further told her that "go and die

instead of alive". The accused has insulted the Victim in a public

place. The Victim, after having been insulted, decided to end

her life and brought the kerosene tin and poured the kerosene

on her, and set the fire herself. Consequently, she has sustained

burning injury. The Victim's husband who was sitting in the

3

nearby place of the locality, had heard the sound of quarrel from

the side of his house and rushed to the spot and saw that his

wife was igniting. Immediately P.W.2 and other co-villagers

have shifted the Victim to the hospital. There she succumbed to

the injuries on 17.06.2008 at about 12.30 a.m.

3.

At the time of treatment, the Doctor has informed

the police about the intention of the deceased to make her

statement about the incident. The Police Head Constable No.136

visited the hospital on 12.06.2008 at about 18.30 hours and

recorded the statement of the Victim and registered the case in

Crime No.114/2008 under sections 354, 341 and 323 of IPC.

Later, after the death of the Victim, a requisition was made to

incorporate the provision under section 306 of IPC. Accordingly,

a charge-sheet came to be filed by the respondent 3 Police for

the offences under sections 354, 341, 323, 504 and 306 of IPC.

4.

Since the offence under section 306 of IPC is

exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned

Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for further

4

course of action. The Sessions Court framed the charges for the

above said offences, read over and explained the same in the

language known to the accused. The accused denied it as false,

and he claimed to be tried.

5.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the

prosecution has examined nine witnesses, i.e., PW.1 to PW.9,

and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and identified

the material object M.O.1.

6.

The trial Court, after having considered the oral and

documentary evidence, opined that the prosecution had failed to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court

passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

7.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

8.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9.

Sri.K.N.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP, vehemently

contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by

5

the Fast Track Court/trial Court is erroneous, contrary to the

material on record, cannot be sustained under the law, and liable

to be set 3 aside. Learned HCGP for the State further contended

that PW.2 is the deceased's husband, and PW.3 is an

independent witness. Evidence of PW.6 3 The Doctor, who

treated the injured and endorsed the statement recorded by

PW.8, states that the victim was fit to state the incident. The

law is well settled that a conviction can be based, only on the

dying declaration, if it inspires the confidence of the Court. Here

in this case, the Victim has spoken about the incident, and the

same has been recorded by the Head Constable and endorsed by

the Doctor regarding her State of mind; therefore, it would be

sufficient to convict the accused. The trial Court ignored to

appreciate the same, which led to the judgment of acquittal.

Hence, the learned HCGP sought to allow the appeal.

10.

Per

contra,

Sri.N.S.Sam