JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in SC No.63/2013 dated 27.04.2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 354, 109, 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. 2. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP, Sri. V.M. Banakar appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and Sri. G.N. Narasammanavar, learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the victim-complainant is the wife of accused No.1 and after her marriage with accused No.1, she was residing in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 and complainant were relatives and accused No.2 is the sister of the father of the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that prior to 5.4.2013, accused Nos.1 to 3 used to quarrel with the complainant in their house demanding further dowry from the parents of the complainant as the dowry given in the marriage was not sufficient. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 was suspecting the fidelity of the complainant and they used to give both physical and mental torture. It is further alleged that on 5.4.2013 at about 12 noon, accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention abused the complainant in filthy language. They assaulted the complainant and thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 were forcing the complainant to give divorce so that accused No.1 could get married to another girl. In that light, accused No.1 dragged her inside the house and when the complainant refused to give divorce, accused Nos.1 to 3 poured kerosene and lit fire to the complainant with common intention to cause the death of the complainant. The complainant made hue and cry, immediately, the neighbors came and after extinguishing the fire, they took her to the hospital and got her admitted. The complainant made hue and cry, immediately, the neighbors came and after extinguishing the fire, they took her to the hospital and got her admitted. On the basis of the complaint as per Ex.P2, case was registered in Crime No.38/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 354, 109, 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The learned Magistrate after filing of the charge sheet took cognizance and after following procedure under Section 207 of C.P.C. after supplying copies of the charge sheet, as the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court after taking cognizance secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused charge was read over and explained to the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and thereafter, trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses as per PW1 to PW23 and got marked 27 documents as per Exs.P1 to P27 and material objects as per MO1 to MO5. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating materials as against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the said questions and they have not led any evidence on their behalf. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. 5. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal before this Court. 6. The main grounds urged by the learned Addl. SPP for the State are that though PW1 in her examination in- chief categorically deposed regarding demand of additional dowry and harassment meted out by the respondents-accused, the same has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and erroneously passed the order of acquittal. He further submitted that the evidence of PW11-Sanganabasayya Ganachari, retired Tahasildar, who recorded Ex.P1-Complaint has also categorically deposed before the Court below corroborating the evidence of PW1. He further submitted that the evidence of PW11-Sanganabasayya Ganachari, retired Tahasildar, who recorded Ex.P1-Complaint has also categorically deposed before the Court below corroborating the evidence of PW1. The Trial Court ignoring the said evidence has come to a wrong conclusion that the doctor-PW6, who treated PW1 immediately after the incident has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and even the said wound certificate also clearly goes to show that the said injuries suffered by the victim-complainant are grievous in nature. This part of the evidence has not been properly considered by the Trial Court. He also submitted that PW1 came to be examined in-chief on 30.08.2014 and thereafter, she has been cross-examined on 12.02.2015 i.e. after 5 ½ months; as there is long gap as such she has given the evidence contrary to the examination-in-chief, but in view of the settled principle of law under Section 154 sub-clause (II), the Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and matter could have been properly adjudicated. The said act of the Trial Court has caused prejudice to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not legally and properly appreciated the evidence and has given wrong conclusion, the said act is nothing but denial of justice. On all these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prays to convict the respondents-accused. 7. Per contra, Sri. G.N. Narasammannavar, learned counsel for the respondents-accused vehemently argued and submitted that though the complainant in her examination-in-chief has supported the case of the prosecution, but during the course of cross-examination, she has given good-bye to the evidence in examination-in-chief and given admission stating that the said fire was accidental fire and the accused persons have not involved in the said alleged crime. When there is inconsistent evidence of PW1, the Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly come to a conclusion and acquitted the accused -respondents. He further submitted that though the Court below rejected the prayer of the prosecution to cross-examine the PW1, the said order has not been challenged and the same has reached finality at this juncture. This Court cannot consider the fact and re-appreciate the evidence which has been produced before the Trial Court. He further submitted that though the Court below rejected the prayer of the prosecution to cross-examine the PW1, the said order has not been challenged and the same has reached finality at this juncture. This Court cannot consider the fact and re-appreciate the evidence which has been produced before the Trial Court. He also submitted that except PW1, PW6 and PW11, no other independent witnesses corroborated the evidence of PW1 and no complaints have been lodged for ill-treatment and harassment both physical and mental to the complainant. The Trial Court after consideration the said facts has rightly acquitted the respondents accused. The appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits. 8. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the judgment of the Trial Court and the evidence which has been produced before the Trial Court. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case has got examined PW1 to 23. PW1, who is the complainant has deposed in her examination-in-chief that after the marriage she was staying along with respondents-accused Nos.1 to 3, at that time, they were ill-treating and harassing her for demand of silver and gold articles and they were not cordial with her. She further deposed that accused Nos.1 to 3 used to assault and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to instigate accused No.1. Accused No.1 used to insist her to give divorce and used to assault. She further deposed that as on the date of the incident at about 12 noon when the accused persons were also in the house, they insisted her to go parents house and started quarreling when she refused to go to parents house; at that time, all the accused persons by pulling her took her inside the house latching the door, accused No.1 took kerosene bottle and by pouring the same lit fire on her, at that time, all the accused persons caught hold of her. She has further deposed that immediately she made hue and cry, the persons who were staying in the same lane came and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, she has been taken to Govt. Hospital, Gadag in Ambulance. She has further deposed that immediately she made hue and cry, the persons who were staying in the same lane came and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, she has been taken to Govt. Hospital, Gadag in Ambulance. She further deposed that she has given her statement before the authorities in hospital as per Ex.P1 and she has also given statement as per Ex.P2. During the course of cross-examination, she has stated that she has not gone to school, her marriage was performed with accused No.1 about five years back and she has not given any complaint with regard to ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused No.1. She has further admitted the suggestions as true that she used to go her parents house for festival and for the purpose of Ugadi festival she has told accused No.1 that she is going to her parental house. She further admitted the suggestions as true that accused No.1 told her to go to her parents house for two or three days after the festival. She further admitted the suggestions as true that there is hearth in the said house and the said hearth is open; by the side of the said hearth, fire wood has been stored. She also admitted the suggestions as true that accused No.2 had been to field on the date of the incident and she further admitted the suggestions as true that on the date of the incident, firstly fire was lit to the wood which was by the side of the said hearth and thereafter it had caught to her saree and when she tried to extinguish the fire, she also sustained burn injuries to her hands and body and when she came out of the house at that time accused No.1 came and extinguished the fire. She further admitted the fact that at the time of extinguishing the fire, hands of accused were also burnt and he has also been treated at District Hospital, Gadag. She also admitted the suggestions as true that she has stated before the doctor that she has suffered burn injuries accidentally and she has further stated the said fact before the police. She has further admitted that she does not know what is written in the complaint and further statement before the Police and she has admitted that she does not know as to who, when and where took her thumb impression. She has further admitted that she does not know what is written in the complaint and further statement before the Police and she has admitted that she does not know as to who, when and where took her thumb impression. At this juncture, learned Addl. SPP requested the Court to treat this witness as hostile witness. The said prayer has been rejected and the evidence of PW1 remains intact as it is. 10. PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for spot panchanama and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. PW4 is the neighbor and eye-witness, he has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW5 is the grand mother of PW1 and she is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident and during the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that her eyes have been operated and she is not having clear visions. In that light, her evidence is not going to help the case of the prosecution. PW6 is the doctor, who treated PW1 and has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P6. PW7 is the ASI, who received the complaint as per Ex.P2. PW8 is the doctor who was present when PW1 had given statement as per Ex.P2. PW9 is the father of PW1 and he is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. PW10, 12 to 21 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. PW11 is the retired Tahasildar, who recorded the statement of PW1 as per Ex.P1. PW22 is the CPI, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. PW23 is the PSI, who received the compliant and issued FIR. 11. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the evidence of PW1. The said evidence of PW1 is not consistent with either Ex.P1 or P2. The close scrutiny of the Exs.P1 and P2, it is found that in Ex.P2 she is nowhere whispered about demand of dowry but in Ex.P2 she has stated that there was ill-treatment and harassment for demand of dowry. 12. Be that as it may, if we peruse the evidence of PW1 though in her examination-in-chief she has supported the case of the prosecution but during the course of cross-examination she has given good-bye to her examination-in-chief. 12. Be that as it may, if we peruse the evidence of PW1 though in her examination-in-chief she has supported the case of the prosecution but during the course of cross-examination she has given good-bye to her examination-in-chief. She has categorically admitted the fact that when she was sitting by the side of the hearth, accidentally she caught fire and to her saree; when she tried to extinguish the fire, she sustained burn injuries to her hands and other parts of the body. Immediately after she caught fire, she came out and at that time, accused No.1 came and extinguished the fire and he also sustained burn injuries and has been taken to Government hospital, Gadag. Even if we peruse the Ex.P6-wound certificate, it has been mentioned in history column that PW1 sustained burn injuries accidentally. This evidence of PW1 during the course of cross-examination is corroborative with Ex.P6, it substantiates the case of the prosecution rather than supporting the case of the prosecution. Insofar as the evidence of PW6-doctor is concerned, it is not going through in line to substantiate the case of the prosecution so also the evidence of PW1. Even on careful perusal of material on record which has been produced before the Trial Court, no independent witnesses have been supported the case of the prosecution. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with Ex.P1 and P2 and it does not repose any confidence of this Court to convict the accused respondents. Though during the course of cross-examination, learned Addl. SPP by referring to Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, he further submitted that though PW1 has been treated as hostile, but under the provisions of Section 154 sub-clause (II), the evidence of hostile witness can be considered and he further submitted that no opportunity has been given to the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses when she has given goodbye to her examination-in-chief, but we have carefully and cautiously gone through the provision of Section 154 sub-clause (II) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and we are not having any difference of opinion with regard to said preposition of law. If the witness has been treated as hostile, if some material is there in the said evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution, even the evidence of hostile witness can be accepted and accused can be convicted, but on close scrutiny of evidence of PW1, no consistency is there in the evidence of PW1. In the first instance, when she has made submission as per Ex.P1 before PW11 that there was demand of dowry by the accused persons and when she gave statement as per Ex.P2, she has given good-bye to the examination-in-chief and she has not uttered any single word regarding demand of dowry. In cross-examination, she has clearly admitted the said fact that she has caught fire accidentally when she was near the hearth. Even in respect of other accused persons, no evidence has been stated. Even in her cross-examination, she has deposed that Accused No.1 came to her rescue and extinguished the fire. That helps the case of the accused rather than the prosecution. 14. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 154 sub-clause II of the Indian Evidence Act is not going to help the case of the prosecution in any manner that too when the Trial Court has rejected the prayer and the said order has not been challenged. The said contention is not acceptable and the same is rejected. 15. We have carefully gone through the judgment of acquittal. The Trial Court after consideration of the material evidence and documents has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereafter has rightly acquitted the accused persons. There are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is also well established principle of law that when the accused has been acquitted by exercising the discretion by the Court below, under such circumstances, the appellate Court must be very slow in interfering with such order. In that light, the impugned order is sustainable in law. 16. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-State has not made out any grounds. The appeal is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.