The court established that an acquittal can be challenged if evidence demonstrates a clear misreading of facts, particularly in cases involving dowry-related violence and homicide.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This appeal is by the State calling in question the judgment dated 30.01.2016 in S.C.No.183/2013 passed by III Addl. Session Judge, Kalaburagi, whereby the Session Judge acquitted the respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98-A , 302, 304-B R/w Section 3 4 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P.Act).

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that, deceased was in love with accused No.1. Though accused Nos.2 and 3 are not agreeable for the marriage, the marriage was performed wherein the elders of the family as well as the elders of their community were present. In the marriage talks, PW8 had given 2 ½ tola gold and Rs.50,000/- in cash and one motorcycle to accused through one Mohan. The accused was also given cloths and gold as per their status. The marriage was performed on 14.01.2013 which accused No.2 & 3 not attended. Thereafter, the deceased came to the parental house for festival, at that the deceased revealed to her parents and brothers that the accused were harassing her for more dowry. However, deceased was advised by the parents and her brother to adjust and lead marital life. As the matter stood on 05.06.2013, the parents received message over phone through one Raju that deceased was taken to hospital by the accused and she was dead. Immediately parents i.e. PW7 and PW8 and brother i.e. PW18 of deceased rushed to the hospital where they found deceased by name Neelabai and rushed to the police station to register the crime. They saw accused were already present in the police station. The father of the deceased PW8 gave report in his Lambani language which has been reduced into writing by one Gopal S/o Ramchandra their community person and he translated it into the Kannada language. Accordingly, Konchawarm Police (Jurisdiction Police) registered the case and issued FIR of their police station Crime No.41/2013 under Section 4 98-A , 302, 304- B R/w Section 3 4 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

3. The police having registered the case, proceeded with investigation and during investigation arrested accused Nos.1 to 3-the respondents herein, they were released on bail subsequently after completion of investigation, police have filed charge sheet against the respondents herein for the offences stated supra, before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate. The jurisdictional magistrate after securing the presence of accused supplied the copies of the chargesheet in terms of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure . The learned magistrate having found that the case is exclusively triable by Session Court committed the matter under Section 209 Cr.P.C., to concerned jurisdiction Session Court.

4. Subsequent to committal, the case was registered before the Session Court in S.C.No.183/2013. The presence of the accused were secured upon summon and enlarged on bail subsequently, in terms of the bail order operating earlier.

5. The accused were heard before charge and having found that there are materials prima-facie against the accused for trial, the accused were charged for the offences stated supra. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Session Judge put the case on trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined in all 23 witnesses as PW1 to PW23 and produced 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and 3 material objec