JUDGMENT : 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C.No.151/2013, wherein the accused persons were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 302, 504 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. Appellant-State is represented by Sri V.M.Banakar, learned Additional S.P.P. and the respondents-accused are represented by learned counsel Sri Bahubali N.Kanabaragi. 3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred in accordance with the ranks held by them before the trial Court. 4. The complainant is in appeal. The substance of the case as could be seen from the certified copy of the judgment is as under: About eight years earlier to the date of lodging complaint (03.01.2013), the marriage of Geetha, daughter of complainant-Tippavva was performed with accused No.1. During the first year of marriage, things went on well, the couple begot three children Kiran, Keerthi and Sandhya through the wedlock. After completion of one year, the accused No.1-husband, his mother-accused No.2, father-accused No.3 started ill-treating Geetha both physically and mentally. They used to find fault with her and compelling her to get up early to go to household work and also for work in other houses. She also was pressurized to bring money from her parental house. During the month of November, an amount of Rs.5,000/-was demanded, the complainant family borrowed hand loan and paid. Again there was a demand for Rs.5,000/-by accused No.1. On receiving the message on 02.01.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. complainant (mother of victim) and her relatives went to the Government Hospital, Gokak, wherein Geetha was admitted due to complete burn injuries. Complainant when enquired Geetha, it was informed by Geetha that on the previous day at 8.00 p.m. in the house of the accused, Geetha was unable to bring Rs.5,000/-from her parental house. Accused No.3 abused Geetha in filthy language and accused No.2 poured kerosene and accused No.1 set the match stick. However in the complaint, it is mentioned that the husband threw water, but the fire did not extinguished. She was admitted to Government Hospital, Gokak and later to KIMS Hospital. Accused No.3 abused Geetha in filthy language and accused No.2 poured kerosene and accused No.1 set the match stick. However in the complaint, it is mentioned that the husband threw water, but the fire did not extinguished. She was admitted to Government Hospital, Gokak and later to KIMS Hospital. Learned trial Judge heard on charge and found grounds to frame charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 504, 323, 302, 114 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were framed and read over. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned trial Judge was accommodated with oral evidence of PWs1 to 25 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P55 and M.O.No.1 to 4. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating circumstances against them and they did not choose to lead defence evidence. The learned trial Judge pronounced the judgment acquitting the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Additional S.P.P. Sri V.M.Banakar submitting arguments on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that there is gross ignorance of overwhelming evidence in favour of the prosecution. The learned trial Judge focused only on hostile evidence of the neighbours, complainant and the brother of the victim. The version spoken by the hostile witnesses, mother-PW11 has not been considered. The non-impact of hostility of the witnesses has not been considered though in the facts and circumstances of the case hostility of complainant or the brother-PW9 need not be considered material. He would further submit that the material witnesses in the circumstances of the case would be the Doctor, who admitted the injured into the hospital and tested her position. The Executive Magistrate who recorded the statement of the injured which subsequently transformed into dying declaration as it related to the cause of death by virtue of death of victim Geetha on 09.01.2013. Learned Additional S.P.P. would further submit that the Doctor-PW15 examined the injured assessed her mental capacity and informed the Executive Magistrate that the victim was in a position to give statement. However, the learned trial Judge has not relied upon the vital version spoken by the victim. Learned Additional S.P.P. would further submit that the Doctor-PW15 examined the injured assessed her mental capacity and informed the Executive Magistrate that the victim was in a position to give statement. However, the learned trial Judge has not relied upon the vital version spoken by the victim. In the context and circumstances of the case, the evidence of Investigating Officer assumes importance; there is a corroboration to the evidence of Investigating Officer from the evidence of PW15, the doctor and the Executive Magistrate besides the contents of Ex.P46. He further submits that when all the ingredients of the offence are met the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused which is erroneous and not in accordance with the established principles of criminal jurisprudence and thus seeks for reversal of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel Sri Bahubali N. Kanabaragi would submit that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record and came to a right conclusion to acquit the accused. There is no iota of evidence incriminating against the accused, sufficient enough to convict them for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Basically the mother lodged the complaint and has realized the truth and has turned hostile to the prosecution. Her evidence does not support prosecution on the other hand, positively establishes the innocence of the accused, who are entitled for acquittal. The other material witnesses, neighbours, mahazardars also have not supported the prosecution. There are no circumstances as well convict the accused to the guilt. The evidence of official witnesses to be Junior Engineer or the Development Officer does not provide any incriminating circumstances against the accused persons. Eventually prays that the judgment of the trial Court be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 7. Before dwelling on the other aspects of the case, we find it necessary and reasonable to focus on the findings of the learned trial Judge regarding the nature of death as to whether homicidal or other. In this connection, the learned trial Judge has framed the points for consideration. Among them, second point is nature of death of Geetha homicidal. The answer given by the learned trial Judge is in the negative. In this connection, the learned trial Judge has framed the points for consideration. Among them, second point is nature of death of Geetha homicidal. The answer given by the learned trial Judge is in the negative. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge finds that it is a natural one, it is not a finding that it is either suicidal nor it is the case of anybody that the death was suicidal. With the above being the state of affairs, there is inquest mahazar-Ex.P14 explaining the posture of the dead body, burn wounds and the postmortem report which says that Geetha had sustained 90-95% burn injuries and she died because of septicaemia due to burn injuries on 09.01.2013. Still the learned trial Judge holds it as death not homicidal, it is surprising, because in all probabilities considering the inquest mahazar, postmortem report, complaint, spot mahazar, evidence of the doctors, statement of the victim in a row tell that it is homicidal no doubt just because the death is homicidal. The homicide may amount to murder may not amount to murder. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish the homicidal was done by the accused thereby they have committed murder. 8. Thus, the next aspect would be whether the evidence available on record are sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the accused and there is proper corroboration among the materials available on record. In this connection, the witnesses PW1, who is the neighbour by name Anand Shankar Savanale, he turns hostile to the case, his role in the case is that he knows the circumstances of the case has heard from the victim regarding the injuries and took her to the hospital. Incidentally, for the later part he turns hostile and denies having heard from the victim. However, he admits in the cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor that himself and others put off the fire on the victim Geetha, she has sustained burn injuries, they procure emergency ambulance and took her to Gokak Government Hospital. However, he denies having heard incriminating version against the accused from victim. He admits that he telephoned the complainant’s family about the incident. Thus, his hostility is not in tandem. His evidence he is the person who took Geetha to the hospital and also informed the complainant’s family. 9. However, he denies having heard incriminating version against the accused from victim. He admits that he telephoned the complainant’s family about the incident. Thus, his hostility is not in tandem. His evidence he is the person who took Geetha to the hospital and also informed the complainant’s family. 9. Further, PW2-Laxman Ramappa Sanawale, PW3Sushila Dilip Sanawale, PW5-Latha Shashikant Sanawale and PW6-Julekha Gulabsab Sanawale are the neighbours. Prosecution cited them as the witnesses who are aware of the ill-treatment or cruelty and the criminal acts of the accused against Geetha, but they have not supported the prosecution. So also PW11-Smt.Tippavva Chandru Patil and PW10Prakash Shankar Sanawale are the witnesses to the mahazar, they follow the suit of the hostile witnesses, so also PW7-Smt.Yallawwa Ramu Karale, inquest mahazar witness, PW8-Krishna Mukappa Shivalli and PW12-Hanumanth Bhima Nayak, who have acted as the elders in conciliation meet. More importantly PW9-Malik Chandru Patil, brother of the deceased, PW11-complainant, PW13-Dastagir Abdulsab Inamdar, photographer, they turned hostile. The witnesses who have spoken against the incident and the state of affairs surrounding the same or PW14-Dr.Adam Allasab Nadar, who conducted the postmortem. PW15 is the doctor Sri Gopal Ramu Wagamude, who has admitted the injured and attended her and assessed her condition when she was brought to the Government Hospital, Gokak. PW25-Dr.N.Sujatha Nanjegouda, who has endorsed on dying declaration and Investigating Officer-PW22. 10. In the said circumstances of the case, the moot question would be whether the hostility of PW1Anand Shankar Sanawale, PW2-Laxman Ramappa Sanawale, PW4-Shabbir Samsher Sanawale and PW6Julekha Gulabsab Sanawale, complainant, brother of the victim prevail over the case of the prosecution and point towards the innocence of the accused and failure of the prosecution in proving the offences beyond reasonable doubt, or the evidence of PW15-Dr.Gopal Ramu Wagamude, PW14-Dr.Adam Allasab Nadaf, PW21-Oudram Hammabba Beary, PW25-Dr.N.Sujatha Nanjegouda, PW22-Sureshbabu Rudrappa Bandiwaddar override the hostility of the witnesses stated above and establishes that prosecution has proved the commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. As stated above, the case is a homicidal one. The place of incident where Geetha sustained the burn injuries is in the house of the accused persons at Mudalagi village at about 8.00 p.m. on 02.01.2013. Admittedly, it is the house wherein the accused persons reside. In this connection, sketch prepared by engineer establishes the evidence of the hostile witnesses no doubt do not support the prosecution. The place of incident where Geetha sustained the burn injuries is in the house of the accused persons at Mudalagi village at about 8.00 p.m. on 02.01.2013. Admittedly, it is the house wherein the accused persons reside. In this connection, sketch prepared by engineer establishes the evidence of the hostile witnesses no doubt do not support the prosecution. Further, factor of the case is that victim was taken from house to Gokak Government Hospital by PW1 and others. Incidentally PW1-Anand Shankar Savanale turns hostile regarding his version as claimed by the prosecution, but tense that on the date of incident at the place of incident, he went and saw Geetha with burn injuries and took her to hospital and informed the mother of the victim who incidentally is the complainant. 12. But the mother-Smt. Tippavva Chandru Patil, in her evidence as PW11 turned hostile and has no grievance against the accused persons. The prime aspect to be considered is that she is not an eyewitness. In the first phase of her chief examination she tells that matrimonial life of her daughter was okay for three years and her daughter begot three children Kiran, Kirti and Sunita but she does not say about the torture or cruelty by her husband and according to her she got information over phone and because her daughter was not in a position to speak she did not hear anything from her. 13. At this stage, focus would be on PW15 who admitted the injured Geetha into the hospital. His evidence is he was working as a Senior Specialist in Government Hospital, Gokak and on 02.01.2013 at about 8 p.m. he was on duty and at about 9.30 p.m. victim Geetha was brought to the hospital by Anand S (PW1). According to the information given by the victim-Geetha, her mother-in-law poured kerosene and set fire. On examining the victim, she was in semi conscious, was very thirst and asking for water, pulse was normal, blood pressure 90/70, burn injuries on face, neck, right upper limbs, lower limbs, injury on stomach, back and she had sustained 90% burn injuries, they were fresh, she was given treatment as inpatient. He also treated her on 03.01.2013. Apart from him, General Surgeon also has treated Geetha. He also treated her on 03.01.2013. Apart from him, General Surgeon also has treated Geetha. On 03.01.2013, the ASI of Mudaligi Police Station asked this witness as to whether the victim Geetha was in a position whether she is in a talking position to give statement. His answer is in the affirmative. He identifies that report as Ex.P.30 and he has signed on the same as per Ex.P.30a. He has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.31. 14. Senior Specialist Dr. Sujatha (PW 25) was requisitioned and asked to give opinion as to whether Geetha was in a position to give statement and the Doctor on examining has given her opinion that Geetha was in a position to give statement. 15. The next witness to be considered is PW25. The said Doctor Sujatha is examined as PW25. In her evidence recorded on 07.12.2015 she has stated that she was discharging her duty as Medical Officer in Government Hospital at Gokak and on 03.01.2013 she received requisition from the Tahasildar-Executive Magistrate as per Ex.P.32 seeking opinion as to whether Geeta Vasant Sanawale, who was admitted with burn injuries was in a condition to give statement and she opined on the requisition-Ex.P.32 stating that patient is able to give her oral statement. On the same day Geetha gave dying declaration before the Tahasildar in the presence of medical witnesses as per Ex.P.46 and she signed it as Ex.P.46d. PW25 has spoken about the Executive Magistrate-Mr. Oudram Hammabba Beary, who is examined as PW21. He gave his evidence on 09.09.2015 by which time he was the Assistant Commissioner, BMC. He has given evidence that on 03.01.2013 he was working as Tahasildar of Gokak. On the dayhe received memo-Ex.P.42 from Mudaligi Police Station he went to Government Hospital, Gokak and wrote a letter to the Medical officer as per Ex.P.32 seeking his opinion as to whether Geetha was able to give any statement. He identifies requisition as Ex.P.32 and his signature on it as Ex.P.32b. He got opinion of the Doctor as per the endorsement. He recorded the dying declaration of Geetha. He questioned her and recorded her statement as to how she was brought to hospital, she answered that residents of her lane brought her to hospital. For the question who assaulted her, she replied her mother-in-law poured kerosene and her aunt Jayatumbi set fire with match stick. He recorded the dying declaration of Geetha. He questioned her and recorded her statement as to how she was brought to hospital, she answered that residents of her lane brought her to hospital. For the question who assaulted her, she replied her mother-in-law poured kerosene and her aunt Jayatumbi set fire with match stick. She also told about the burn injuries sustained by her. On questioning about the intention of the crime, she replied that in the evening there was quarrel with the children, her mother-in-law being enraged, poured kerosene and when she was going to bath room, Jayatumbi lit fire with the match stick. Her husband Vasant tried to extinguish the fire but fire did not extinguish. At that time, people gathered and took her to the hospital. Since palms were burnt, her finger impression of the left toe was obtained for the dying declaration. He identified dying declaration as Ex.P.46 and his signatures as Ex.P.46a and Ex.P.46b and toe impression of Geetha as per Ex.P.46c. He tells that the statement was recorded between 12.15 p.m. to 12.25 p.m. on 03.01.2013. 16. The next witness who comes in chronology is PW22-Sureshbabu Bandiwaddar, PSI. He speaks regarding registration of the case and conducting part of investigation. Then PW23-Sharanappa M. Olekar, DSP. He also conducted part of investigation. After completion of investigation PW23 filed the charge sheet. 17. As stated above as to whether the hostility of the witnesses stated above had taken the sting out of the prosecution case or prosecution case is not subjected to any impact through their hostility. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that the offences charge sheeted against the accused are u/s 498(A), 504, 323, 302, 114 of IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. However, accused No.3 died and the case against him stood abated. Thus, accused No.1-Vasant Sanavale and accused No.2-Smt. Jaitunabi faced trial. The offences when the case was registered, the major offence was Sec. 307 IPC and by virtue of death of Geetha, the offence u/s 307 IPC was replaced by Sec. 302 IPC. It is necessary to mention that the Court takes cognizance of the case and not the offender. Further, every offence has an offender. It is the job of the Court to see whether the prosecution establishes beyond shadow of doubt the accused person before the Court has committed offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is necessary to mention that the Court takes cognizance of the case and not the offender. Further, every offence has an offender. It is the job of the Court to see whether the prosecution establishes beyond shadow of doubt the accused person before the Court has committed offence beyond reasonable doubt. As the victim in the case is a married lady, it is necessary to consider the same along with other offences, as such Sec. 304B and 306 IPC. In case of cruelty to a married lady, the offence invoked is Sec. 498A IPC against the husband or the relatives whoever against whom the complaint is made and on the basis of the period of time from the date of marriage of seven years. The next offence that comes for reckoning is 304-B IPC. When the dowry harassment is not the substantial allegation or proved, Sec. 306 IPC is invoked wherein victim commits suicide. 18. Regard being had to the fact that the other offence as to demand for dowry for receiving dowry or for not returning the request received as dowry u/s 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. The offence charged against the accused is 302 IPC. Thus, simplicitor the charge framed against the accused for the offence u/s 302 r/w 498A IPC. The punishment is equal to that of the offender. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to mention Sec. 498A IPC. 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment f or a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 19. Sec. 498A IPC speaks by itself that cruelty to married woman has two limbs, one is related to dowry harassment and the other limb is related to other forms of cruelty to domestic violence. As such, Sec. 498A IPC has nexus to Sec. 304B IPC, which reads as under: 304B. 19. Sec. 498A IPC speaks by itself that cruelty to married woman has two limbs, one is related to dowry harassment and the other limb is related to other forms of cruelty to domestic violence. As such, Sec. 498A IPC has nexus to Sec. 304B IPC, which reads as under: 304B. Do wry death – (1) where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs other wise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is sho wn that soon bef ore her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband f or, or in connection with, any demand f or dowry, such death shall be called “do wry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits do wry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 20. Thus there is no hesitation to mention that if the offence u/s 498A IPC is not established, there cannot be conviction for Sec. 304B IPC. 21. Regard being had to the fact that if the other forms of harassment other than dowry are established being the next limb of Sec. 498A IPC, the aggravated form of cruelty if it has lead to commission of suicide. Then a bearing will be the offence u/s 498A r/w Sec. 307 IPC. Sec.302 IPC provides for murder which is as under: 302. Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or (imprisonment for life), and shall also be liable to fine. It could be held that the offence u/s 302 IPC may or may not be connected to Sec. 498A IPC. 22. In this connection responsibility on the part of the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt whether the accused persons have committed the culpable homicide on Geetha beyond reasonable doubt as on the date charged against them, whether they inflicted such kind of injuries knowing fully well that they are in the nature of definitely causing death of Geetha. Admittedly, the incident is said to have happened in the house of the accused persons. Admittedly, the incident is said to have happened in the house of the accused persons. The victim and accused persons are the regular or permanent inmates of the house as they recided under a common roof. Chronologically, the victim, husband (accused No.1) and parents of the accused are the members who are supposed to have knowledge of the activities in the house more particularly when it is not disputed about their presence in the house. It becomes necessary to peruse Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is as under: 106. Burden of proving f act especially within knowledge – When any f act is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that f act is upon him. 23. In the context whenever an abnormal incident or event, something disasters or monsterous happen or a case a ghastly incident, the inmates who have seen it or involved must be supposed to know about the incident, as it remains as permanent part of memory. It is not that the inmate who was present is presumed to be guilty or that he has committed the offence. On the other hand, he is supposed to tell how the incident has happened which is totally a responsibility. The occasion wherein the accused interact the Judge trying the case, is examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they stand a chance to answer as to whether they have to say anything, or having any defence evidence in the form of document or oral evidence. It is significant to note that there is no whisper from accused regarding what happened. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to make a mention that when a person does not offer explanation, under such circumstances or when the explanation offered is apparently false on the face of it, he stands in the inescapable position of guilt. Mother and brother are the witnesses who are material to the case. Incidentally, they have turned hostile. 24. In the circumstances, the injured witness is considered to be the best witness person. In this case, the injured victim-Geetha has given statement and breathed her last, the person who interacted prior to her death are Doctors PW15 and PW25. They are the independent and official witnesses. Hostility of the mother or PW1 invariably loses significance in the light of the independent official witnesses PW15Dr. Gopal Ramu Wagamude and PW25-Dr. In this case, the injured victim-Geetha has given statement and breathed her last, the person who interacted prior to her death are Doctors PW15 and PW25. They are the independent and official witnesses. Hostility of the mother or PW1 invariably loses significance in the light of the independent official witnesses PW15Dr. Gopal Ramu Wagamude and PW25-Dr. N.Sujatha Nanjegouda who has certified mental status of the victim to the Executive Magistrate-PW21. Rest of the witnesses, in the circumstances on the face of them, appear formal. The said witness stated by oath are the independent official witnesses, they do not have bias or prejudice or favour either against the complainant or the accused. In crystal clear and unequivocal terms the Doctor who assessed status of the victim has stated that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. 25. PW15 says when she was admitted on 02.01.2013 and on the next day also he has treated her when she was insisting for water saying that she was thirst. But it is a case of burn injuries upto 9095% due to septicemia caused by the burn injuries. It cannot be forgotten for a while, consciousness of a dying person depends on the circumstances and the extent of injury. Certain times, due to shock even a person who has sustained 50% may not be able to speak but his living percentage has to be reckoned. At the same time even on person who sustained injury of 90-95% may also speak or respond but the report is how far he or she sustains or survives. 26. In this case the Doctors who have no bias, the Executive Magistrate, Gokak, who was the Assistant Commissioner on the date of his evidence, have spoken regarding the state of affairs, such as, the Executive Magistrate-PW21 states in crystal clear terms that he requested the Doctor-PW25 to examine the injured and give opinion, PW25 responded. She examined and gave opinion as per Ex.P.44 and thereafter the statement was recorded and there is no substantial or material defect in recording of dying declaration from any angle whatsoever. The said official witnesses stay away from any kind of personal interest, bias or prejudice, they are independent. 27. In the present case the person who sustained injury is the best witness is the victim. She has spoken in unequivocal terms that has been confirmed by PW15, PW21 and PW25. The said official witnesses stay away from any kind of personal interest, bias or prejudice, they are independent. 27. In the present case the person who sustained injury is the best witness is the victim. She has spoken in unequivocal terms that has been confirmed by PW15, PW21 and PW25. Absolutely there are no reasons to discredit that. Lets state the better regarding the hostility of the brother of the victim, mother who is also the complainant. In the circumstances, the victim in the case is the deceased but the victim till the end are the poor children who lost their mother. Insofar as statement of Geetha is concerned, it is not diluted nor infected from any angle. No-one is presumed to be lying when he is dying more particularly regarding the cause of death. There is certain irregularities regarding mentioning of injuries sustained by Geetha. She says, at the time of incident it was the mother-in-law who poured kerosene on her and when she was about to go to bath room, she lit the match stick and threw on her to set her ablaze and her husband poured water but it was not sufficient to put off the fire. Anand-PW1 came in. In this connection, the injured’s condition Geetha is corroborated by evidence of PW1, though he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 28. The accused persons are charged for the offences punishable u/s 498(A), 504, 323, 302, 114 of IPC and u/s 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under: 4. Penalty for demanding dowry – If any person demands, directly or indirectly, f rom the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment f or a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with f ine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. Provided that the Court may, f or adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment f or a term of less than six months. 6. Provided that the Court may, f or adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment f or a term of less than six months. 6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife of her heirs – (1) Where any do wry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman (a) If the do wry was received marriage, within three months after the date of marriage; or (b) If the do wry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within three months after the date of its receipt; or (c) If the do wry was received when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and pending such transfer, shall hold it trust f or the benefit of the woman. 29. On examining the entire material on record there is no specific material to establish the offence u/s 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act with precision and corroboration. Further, there is no charge u/s 6 of the D.P. Act. There is no fast and hard rule that mother or near relatives would always material for connecting homicidal death of a married lady (murder) and hold driver’s seat in prosecution evidence. 30. From the very statement of Geetha, cruelty to her in the hands of the accused persons is established invariably and without iota of doubt. The cause of death is burn injuries and the burn injuries are established to have been inflicted by accused Nos.1 and 2, they are charged with common intention. If the accused No.1 was really about to save his wife, he could have done it when she was in murderous condition by sustaining injuries to the extent of 90-95% inflicted in his person in his presence and in the presence of hostility of himself and his wife, he never bothered even to take her to treatment. He wanted to ensure that she dies. In this connection, the offence may be with respect of commission or omission. 31. He wanted to ensure that she dies. In this connection, the offence may be with respect of commission or omission. 31. In the overall circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge misapplied the principles of criminal jurisprudence and the basic fact of holding the death as non-homicidal and not mentioning about the nature of death ignoring the evidence of the Doctors-PW15 and PW25, the Executive Maistrate-PW21, the Investigating Officers PW22 and PW23 and it is a grave circumstance of miscarriage of justice. The judgment acquitting the accused cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside as we are satisfied and confirmed that the prosecution has proved commission of offences punishable u/s 498A and 302 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC and they are liable to be convicted. Accordingly, we hold that the accused persons are guilty of having committed the said offences and they are liable to be convicted and the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in this extent is liable to be set aside. However, acquittal of the accused for the offences u/s 504 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act stands confirmed. 32. In the result, t0e appeal is allowed in part. The judgment acquitting the accused for the offences 498A and 302 r/w 34 IPC in S.C. No. 151/2013 dated 28.01.2016 by the learned VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside. However, the judgment acquitting the accused for the offences u/s 504 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act is confirmed. 33. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the children are minor and there is no-one to look after them and lenient view may be considered to be taken on the accused. 34. After having heard we find that the offence does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases and the next kind of punishment is only life imprisonment and fine as contemplated u/s 302 IPC. 35. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498A and 302 IPC. They are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 35. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498A and 302 IPC. They are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. They are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantial sentences shall run concurrently. Registry to transmit the trial Court records and with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court for further formalities on the part of the trial Judge to secure presence of the respondents-accused persons and to issue necessary warrant of conviction and also to collect fine if the same is deposited.