In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere if the trial court's view is plausible, as the acquittal reinforces the accused's presumption of innocence. Reversal is warranted only for substantial and compelling reasons, particularly when the prosecution fails to establish a definitive cause of death.

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 04.10.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO.131/2011 BY THE VIII ADITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3/RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,302, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

1. The State has assailed the judgment and order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in SC.No.131/2011, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned HCGP for the appellant/State and learned counsel for respondents/accused Nos.1 and 3 and perused the evidence and material on record.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the marriage of Usha Bai (the deceased) was solemnized with the first accused on 24.06.2007 as per Hindu Customs prevailing in their Community. Accused No.2 is the brother and accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as dowry and also gold ornaments for the bride. After the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased for further dowry and there was Panchayat held in presence of both the families. In the said panchayat, the accused assured that they will take care of Usha Bai. However, on 15.01.2011 at about 09.00 pm, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and committed murder.

4. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforementioned offences. Accused No.2 died during the pendency of trial and therefore, the case against the said accused came to be abated. The trial proceeded against accused Nos.1 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, vide impugned judgment, acquitted both the accused of the charges framed against them.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned HCGP contended that, admittedly, deceased Usha Bai and accused No.1 were living in the same house and the death has taken place in the said house. The parents and other relatives of the deceased have categorically stated that dowry was demanded at the time of marriage and subsequent to the marriage, accused were ill-treating the deceased demanding further dowry. Panchayats were also held to resolve the issue. The accused have not given any explanation for the cause of death of the deceased and therefore, in the absence of such explanation and in view of the evidence and material on record, the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the accused. She contended that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are not in accordance with law and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that, in this case, though the deceased was declared dead by the doctor on 16.01.2011 itself, no inquest or post-mortem was conducted till 19.01.2011. He contended t