JUDGMENT : The appeal in Crl.A.No.36/2016 is preferred by the appellant/accused and the connected appeals, namely Crl.A.No.248/2016 and also Crl.A.No.372/2016 have been preferred by the appellant/State respectively, challenging the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15054/2014 dated 23.09.2015. By the said judgment, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-with default cause for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-with default clause for the offences punishable under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. 2. Crl.A.No.372/2016 is preferred by the State praying to set-aside the judgment of acquittal for offences under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 and thereby praying to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 3. Crl.A.No.36/2016 has been filed by the appellant/accused seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered in the aforesaid sessions case and thereby to acquit the accused of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, 1860 and the offences under Section 177 of the IPC in respect of which she was convicted. 4. Crl.A.No.248/2016 has been preferred by the State seeking to allow the appeal and to modify the order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court and thereby to impose appropriate and adequate sentence against the accused in respect of the offences under Section 304 Part-II and Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. 5. In view of the fact that all these, three appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court, therefore, the appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 6. Heard the learned counsel Shri Deepak Narajji for appellant/accused in Crl.A.No.36/2016 and so also the counsel for the respondent/accused in Crl.A.No.372/2016 and Crl.A.No.248/2016. We have also heard the arguments of the learned Addl. SPP for the State in Crl.A.No.372/2016 and Crl.A.No.248/2016 and so also the Addl. SPP for the respondent in Crl.A.No.36/2016. Perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15054/2014 convicting the accused for offences punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and so also for offences under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. 7. SPP for the State in Crl.A.No.372/2016 and Crl.A.No.248/2016 and so also the Addl. SPP for the respondent in Crl.A.No.36/2016. Perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.15054/2014 convicting the accused for offences punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and so also for offences under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. 7. The factual matrix of these appeals are as under: It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the deceased Gangadharappa who is none other than the husband of accused Munirathnamma, was blessed with three sons. PW-13/Renuka who is none other than the wife of PW-8/S.V. Venkatesh were also residing in the same area nearby the house of the accused Munirathnamma situated at Sonnappanahalli village. The accused Munirathnamma and the deceased Gangadharappa were spouses and they were related to PW-13/Smt. Renuka, W/o. S.V. Venkatesh. They were mutually visiting each others houses frequently, being related to each other. PW-13/Renuka and CW-12/Sunandamma and PW-11/Kasthuri were neighbourers residing near the house of the accused Munirathnamma. It is stated that all of them were addicted to bad vices by consuming alcohol and consumed the same even during the morning hours when the day commenced. It further transpires that on 04.09.2014, the deceased Gangadharappa was sleeping at home and accused Munirathnamma informed him to bring some provisions namely foodgrains for preparing food. Therefore, deceased Gangadharappa had left the house by informing the accused Munirathnamma saying that he would collect the money from his employer to bring foodgrains. At around 9.30 a.m., the accused Munirathnamma had got some information from CW-12/Sunandamma that the deceased Gangadharappa was present in the house of PW-13/Renuka and further that both of them were found sleeping together in bed in a compromising position. On receiving the said information, immediately, the accused Munirathnamma went to the house of PW-14 namely Venkataraju and found that the deceased Gangadharappa and PW-13/Renuka were present in their house and also they were sleeping together on the same bed and both were found to be nude, that is without cloths on their person. Further, both of them were found intoxicated by consuming alcohol. On seeing the position of Gangadharappa and the position of PW-13/Renuka, the accused Munirathnamma abused them in filthy language. Subsequently, the accused Munirathnamma took her husband Gangadharappa to her house. There was some altercation in between the accused Munirathnamma and the deceased Gangadharappa. Further, both of them were found intoxicated by consuming alcohol. On seeing the position of Gangadharappa and the position of PW-13/Renuka, the accused Munirathnamma abused them in filthy language. Subsequently, the accused Munirathnamma took her husband Gangadharappa to her house. There was some altercation in between the accused Munirathnamma and the deceased Gangadharappa. Subsequently, the accused Munirathnamma went to the house of PW-13/Renuka and picked up a quarrel with her on the issue relating to having found her along with her husband in a compromising position in her house. PW-8/S.V. Venkatesha was not in town when the incident had occurred. However, the said PW-8/S.V. Venkatesha who is none other than the husband of PW-13/Renuka who was not in town at the time of the incident, was informed about the said incident. Soon after getting information about that incident, he rushed to his house and abused his wife PW-13/Renuka for her misconduct and then he went to the house of the accused Munirathnamma and picked up a quarrel with Gangadharappa. PW-8 abused the deceased Gangadharappa for having an illicit relationship with his wife PW-13/Renuka. Subsequent to exchange of some filthy language in between them, he then left the house of the accused Munirathnamma. The accused Munirathnamma soon thereafter, again abused her husband Gangadharappa for his illicit relationship with Renuka and started assaulting him with means of a reaper and pushed his head towards the wall. She also assaulted him all over his body and caused brutal injuries. Gangadharappa had thus sustained severe injuries on his head, as a result of which he died. 8. It is also stated that accused Munirathnamma had an illicit relationship with PW-9/Narayanaswamy. This fact also has come to the knowledge of her husband deceased Gangadharappa. Due to these kinds of incidents in the family of the aforesaid persons and vice versa, there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. Hence, she wanted to eliminate her husband in view of his illicit relationship with PW-13/Renuka as well as due to the fact that he had found out the illicit relationship of his wife Munirathnamma with PW-9/Narayanaswamy. It is stated that PW-9 used to squander his entire earnings for alcohol. Hence, she wanted to eliminate her husband in view of his illicit relationship with PW-13/Renuka as well as due to the fact that he had found out the illicit relationship of his wife Munirathnamma with PW-9/Narayanaswamy. It is stated that PW-9 used to squander his entire earnings for alcohol. In view of the fact that PW8/S.V. Venkatesha had come to their house and quarreled with herself i.e., Munirathnamma and her husband, the said Munirathnamma filed a complaint as per Exhibit P-14 against PW-8/Venkatesha before Chikkajala Police Station for causing the death of her husband. 9. Criminal law was set into motion based upon her complaint statement at Exhibit P-14 and crime came to be registered by the Chikkajala P.S. against PW-8/S.V. Venkatesha in Cr.No.87/2014. Subsequent to criminal law being set into motion relating to the incident in view of the death of Gangadharappa, investigation was taken up by the Investigating Agency, who after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the accused Munirathnamma instead of PW-8/S.V. Venkatesha for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 177 of the IPC, 1860, in view of having found that she had given false information to the public servant being a Police Officer. 10. Subsequent to relying on the charge-sheet against the accused by the Investigating Agency, the Committal Magistrate passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Accordingly, the case in S.C.No.15054/2014 was registered. The Trial Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the defence counsel and on finding that there was prima facie material, charges were framed against the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 177 of the IPC, 1860. The charges were read over to the accused in a language known to her but she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the plea of the accused was recorded. 11. Subsequently, the prosecution let in their evidence by subjecting to examination in all PW-1 to PW24 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P18 and so also got marked MO-1 to MO-9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. relating to incriminating evidence appearing against her, whereby the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. relating to incriminating evidence appearing against her, whereby the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution. Subsequently, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it was recorded. 12. Subsequent to closure of the evidence in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. the Trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the counter arguments of the learned Defence counsel. Further, the Trial Court had gone through the evidence of PW-1/Narasimhamurthy, son of deceased Gangadharappa and accused Munirathnamma, PW-8/Venkatesh who is none other than the husband of PW-13/Renuka, PW-17/Dr. B.M. Nagaraju who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued the PM report as per Exhibit P7 and whereby noticed the injuries inflicted over the person and also the cause of death opined by the Doctor. PW-19/Narayanaswamy who is a Police Constable, is an official witness who is a carrier of articles said to have been seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. PW-22/P. Muralidhar is the Police Inspector who laid the charge-sheet against the accused and the entire investigation has been done by him. PW-23/Palaksha is the Police Constable who is the carrier of the FIR at Exhibit P-15 relating to initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused. These are all the evidence which have been appreciated by the Trial Court by referring to the evidence of each one of the witnesses and thereby being convinced that the evidence and averments made in the complaint against the accused and so also the facts in the voluntary statement of the accused as per Exhibit P16, held conviction against the accused for the offences under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860, as stated in the operative portion of the order. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds. 13. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds. 13. Learned counsel Shri Deepak Narajji for the appellant/accused in Crl.A.No.36/2016 and so also being the counsel for the respondent/accused in other two appeals has addressed common arguments by referring to the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses on the part of the prosecution as regards the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 304 Part-II IPC and for offences under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. It is contended that the Trial Court had arrived at the said conclusion based on surmises and conjectures and element of presumption has crept in for convicting the appellant and hence, the same is liable to be reversed. The Trial Court, only on the basis of complaint averments, assuming the other facts and contents of the prosecution theory, which cannot be used against the accused, has proceeded to convict the accused. The complaint is nothing but only initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused. The complainant police did not find any material or even substance of an allegation made against the accused. Even the Court, that is the Trial Court cannot make use of the statement as a confession being hit under Section 26 or 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Criminal law was set into motion on receipt of a complaint made by the complainant. But it is not substantive material to prove the facts. It is only upon a complaint copy appellant cannot be found guilty relating to any offences. 14. His further argument is that the order passed by the Trial Court is against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and the law as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several rulings on the subject. Further, the Trial Court has erred in believing the prosecution story, which is not corroborated by worthwhile evidence in order to convict the accused. The Trial Court had totally ignored the settled proposition of law in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and no advantage can be given to the prosecution of the weakness of the defence case. The Trial Court had totally ignored the settled proposition of law in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and no advantage can be given to the prosecution of the weakness of the defence case. Further, there are serious material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and hence, benefit of doubt ought to be given to the appellant/accused, in view of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. When there is a doubt crept in the theory of the prosecution, then it should go in favour of the accused alone. But the Trial Court has erroneously given more credentiality to the case of the prosecution and held the sentence against the accused for offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and Section 177 of the IPC. Though the appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC, but Court found her guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. Though charges were altered, the Trial Court had not followed the due process of law, which is against natural justice, since the Court should have read over the charges and opportunity ought to have been provided to the appellant to defend her case. Hence, the Trial Court has erred and based upon the available evidence, convicted the appellant. Further, the Trial Court, without giving opportunity to the appellant, proceeded to convict the accused under Section 304 Part-II IPC, which has prejudiced the appellant. When in the first instance charge was framed, appellant should take defence with respect to intention, whereas the charge for which the Trial Court convicted the accused does not require the intention but presumption. But instead of considering the improvement and contradiction and so also the lacuna of the prosecution theory, formed an opinion without any basis or worthwhile evidence and rendered a conviction judgment against the accused person. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused prays to consider the grounds urged in the appeal preferred by the appellant and to set aside the judgment of conviction held against the accused Munirathnamma and thereby to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC inclusive of offence under Section 177 IPC. 15. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused prays to consider the grounds urged in the appeal preferred by the appellant and to set aside the judgment of conviction held against the accused Munirathnamma and thereby to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC inclusive of offence under Section 177 IPC. 15. The Trial Court itself having been convinced of the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC by facilitating worthwhile evidence, has convicted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and so also the ingredients of Section 177 of the IPC relating to false opinion given to the public servant namely the Police Officer. Hence, in view of inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the learned counsel Shri Deepak Narajji seeks to consider the grounds urged in the appeal preferred by the appellant and to set aside the conviction judgment in S.C.No.15054/2014 and consequently to acquit the accused for the offences levelled against her. 16. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the State has preferred two appeals in Crl.A.No.372/2016 and so also in Crl.A.No.248/2016 challenging the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. But in Crl.A.No.372/2016 the State seeks to convict the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC by setting aside the judgment of conviction for offences under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 177 IPC. In Crl.A.No.248/2016 the State seeks to allow the appeal and to modify the order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court and thereby to impose appropriate and adequate sentence against the accused in respect of the offences under Section 304 Part-II and Section 177 of the IPC. 17. But in these appeals, though the State has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction for the grounds urged and even the grounds urged are akin to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but does not call for any warranting circumstances to interfere and more so, no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution for securing conviction against the accused Munirathnamma even though the incident had occurred in her house leading to the death of her husband Gangadharappa by infliction of injuries over his person by means of MO-4/wooden reaper and also blood-stains found on the blue colour half-shirt and pant and pillow and so also sample mud and bloodstained mud. Unbloodstained sample mud and blood-stained mud were marked as MO-6 and MO-7 inclusive of the saree at MO-8 and sheet cover at MO-9. 18. Though the prosecution has subjected to examination in all PW-1 to PW-24, but no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to secure conviction on the ground that PW-1 to PW-3 are the son of the deceased Gangadharappa and also the sons of the accused Munirathnamma. But they did not absolutely support the case of the prosecution and they have given a go-by to the versions of their statements at Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 and further, their evidence is contradictory to the evidence of PW-22/P. Muralidhar being the Police Inspector who had done the investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused by conducting spot mahazar at Exhibit P4 and Seizure mahazar at Exhibit P6 and inquest over the dead body of Gangadharappa in the presence of panch witnesses as per Exhibit P5 and the injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased as indicated at Exhibit P7 and so also the FSL Report at Exhibit P17. In the totality of the evidence of the prosecution, a prudent man can infer that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. On all these premise, learned counsel for the appellant/accused is seeking for dismissal of the appeal preferred by the State in Crl.A.No.372/2016 and Crl.A.No.248/2016 and thereby to allow the appeal preferred by the appellant in Crl.A.No.36/2016 and consequently to acquit the accused of the offences under Section 304 Part II and so also offences under Section 177 of the IPC, 1860. 20. On controvert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri Deepak Narajji for the appellant/accused, the learned Addl. SPP for the State in respect of the two appeals preferred by challenging the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court, contends that the entire case has been made out that the accused was having an illicit relationship with one PW-9/Narayanaswamy. But the deceased Gangadharappa had come to know about the fact relating to the illicit relationship of his wife with the said Narayanaswamy and he was nagging her. Hence, she was already thinking of eliminating her husband Gangadharappa. Consequently, she committed the murder of her husband. But the deceased Gangadharappa had come to know about the fact relating to the illicit relationship of his wife with the said Narayanaswamy and he was nagging her. Hence, she was already thinking of eliminating her husband Gangadharappa. Consequently, she committed the murder of her husband. But on the date of the incident narrated in initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused, the accused had taken advantage of PW-8/Venkatesh who came to their house and quarreled with them and thereby had filed a complaint against him alleging the said Venkatesh as the accused who committed the murder. 21. Except PW-20, none of the witnesses have specifically stated about the illicit relationship between Munirathnamma and PW-9/Narayanappa. But the evidence of PW-9 on the part of the prosecution reveals that he does not know the accused Munirathnamma and also he has denied the said illicit relationship between him and the accused. Even accused has denied that she murdered her husband Gangadharappa. But she has not taken any specific defence that out of sudden rage in a heat of passion and that there was no pre-meditation to commit the alleged offences. But in the totality of circumstances of the case inclusive of the given facts, it does not appear that it was a pre-meditated murder of her husband Gangadharappa. On the fateful day of the incident, Gangadharappa informed to accused Munirathnamma that he was going to meet his employer to collect salary which is the source for bringing provision to their house. Thereafter, through a neighbour, accused Munirathnamma got information that her husband was found in a compromising position with PW-13/Renuka in her house. In view of that, she was enraged against her husband and picked up a quarrel with him and even assaulted him for spoiling her family life. 22. Insofar as the concept of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the facts of the present case on hand are totally different. But accused herself has filed a complaint relating to the death of her husband. The death had occurred in her house. But in the said complaint, PW8/S.V. Venkatesh was alleged to have caused his death. But accused had given false information about him with the police by creating a theory. But the prosecution insofar as the theory and circumstances and totality, had proved the guilt of the accused. The death had occurred in her house. But in the said complaint, PW8/S.V. Venkatesh was alleged to have caused his death. But accused had given false information about him with the police by creating a theory. But the prosecution insofar as the theory and circumstances and totality, had proved the guilt of the accused. PW-22 being an I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused by conducting spot mahazar at Exhibit P4, Seizure mahazar at Exhibit P6, Inquest over the dead body of Gangadharappa and even secured the PM report at Exhibit P7. Post mortem over the dead body was conducted by Dr. Nagaraju, who noticed the injuries inflicted over his person. Voluntary statement of the accused was recorded as per Exhibit P-16 and certain material objects were seized and conducted seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. There is no dispute that the death of Gangadharappa occurred in his house in view of infliction of injuries over his body including assault on his head, which had caused his death. When informed the neighbourers relating to the incident of death of her husband, none of the witnesses were examined relating to the concept of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. She has stated that it is only after much deliberations and consultations, she filed a complaint since she was under shock. But PW-1 also does not support the case of the prosecution in his statement inclusive of PW-2 and PW-3. After committing the murder by herself, she had deliberated and filed a complaint against PW-8 that he was the person who committed the murder of her husband. Doubt arises as to whether she was really worried about the death of her husband, since after the death of her husband, she has herself gone to the Computer Center and got preferred the complaint in the computer process and took it and then filed the said complaint with the police against PW-8/Venkatesha. It had almost taken 7 hours to file the said complaint, which itself indicates the conduct of the accused and also it is highly suspicious about her conduct. Accused is none other than the wife of the deceased Gangadharappa. Even though an allegation is made against PW-8/S.V. Venkatesh that it was he who caused the death of her husband Gangadharappa and even if there are hearsay evidence, but it requires corroboration of the case of the prosecution. Accused is none other than the wife of the deceased Gangadharappa. Even though an allegation is made against PW-8/S.V. Venkatesh that it was he who caused the death of her husband Gangadharappa and even if there are hearsay evidence, but it requires corroboration of the case of the prosecution. Though the accused Munirathnamma had done to death her husband Gangadharappa, she has tried to put the blame upon PW-8/S.V. Venkatesha. In the totality of the given facts and circumstances of the case, the accused had two reasons to eliminate her husband. Since she had developed an illicit relationship with PW-9/Narayanaswamy, she wanted to eliminate her husband to continue her illicit relationship with PW-9/Narayanaswamy. But there was no evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the said fact. But the death of Gangadharappa had occurred in her house. Even though it is not homicidal, but it was a homicidal death under the concept of Section 299 IPC and Exception (4) of Section 300 of the Explanation as found in the aforesaid section of the IPC, 1860. However, the Trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and for offences under Section 177 of the IPC relating to false information given by accused Munirathnamma to a public servant such as Police Officer. The Trial Court even though arrived at a sentence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC inclusive of Section 177 of the IPC, but it is found to be inadequate. Therefore, learned Addl. SPP seeks to award adequate sentence against the accused in the aforesaid two appeals preferred by the State challenging the impugned judgment of conviction. 23. On all these premise, learned Addl. SPP for the State in respect of these appeals in Crl.A.372/2016 and Crl.A.No.248/2016 seeks to consider the grounds urged in these appeals and to set-aside the judgment of acquittal for offences under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 though it is modified and thereby praying to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Further, to modify the order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court and thereby to impose appropriate and adequate sentence against the accused in respect of the offences under Section 304 Part-II and Section 177 of the IPC which are reflected in the operative portion of the order. 24. Further, to modify the order of sentence imposed by the Trial Court and thereby to impose appropriate and adequate sentence against the accused in respect of the offences under Section 304 Part-II and Section 177 of the IPC which are reflected in the operative portion of the order. 24. It is in this backdrop of the contentions stoutly made by learned counsel Sri Narajji Deepak for accused by referring to the evidence of the prosecution and so also, learned Addl.SPP for State, it is relevant to refer Section 299 of IPC, 1860 relating to culpable homicide which reads as under: 299. Culpable homicide.-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Explanation 1.-A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2.-Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Explanation 3.-The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. 25. It is relevant to state that the death caused of person other than intended, the accused, with the intention of killing or eliminating a person or whose life he had taken out considerable insurance without latter’s knowledge, in order to obtain something. But difference between culpable homicide and murder is that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all murders are culpable homicides, but all culpable homicides are not murders. The said issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289 . But difference between culpable homicide and murder is that culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species and all murders are culpable homicides, but all culpable homicides are not murders. The said issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 8 SCC 289 . Keeping in view the above said provision of Indian Penal Code, but presumption regarding intention or knowledge, in Palani Gaindan v. Emperor (1919) 42 Mad 547, it is held that the accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the ploughshare which rendered her unconscious and hanged his wife soon afterwards under the impression that she was already dead intending to create false evidence as to the cause of the death and to conceal his own crime. It was held that the intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what supposed to be the circumstances. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence by hanging her. But provocation caused by the act, the assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed. The said issue was held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murti Lazmipatti Naidu ( AIR 1981 SC 617 ). 26. It is also relevant to refer the concept of Section 300 of IPC relating to Murder which reads as under: 300. The said issue was held in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murti Lazmipatti Naidu ( AIR 1981 SC 617 ). 26. It is also relevant to refer the concept of Section 300 of IPC relating to Murder which reads as under: 300. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly -If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly -If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly -If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 27. In the instant case, the trial Court has held that the accused did not had an intention to kill him, but assaulted on her husband. The case made out by prosecution in this regard is not probable. The provisions of Section 300 of IPC Exception 4, is applicable to the facts of the present case. It is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as held. But in the instant case, accused – Munirathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa was addicted to consuming alcohol and also developed some bad vices by having illicit relationship with PW.13 – Renuka who is none other than the wife of PW.8 – Venkatesh. But on the fateful day deceased was sleeping at home and accused told him to bring provisions for preparing food. Later accused got information that deceased Gangadharappa was sleeping in the house of PW.13 – Renuka and both were found in compromising position in the house of PW.13. Thereafter accused went to the house of PW.13 and found that deceased and PW.13 were sleeping together on same bed and both were nude. Both of them were found inebriated. Later accused got information that deceased Gangadharappa was sleeping in the house of PW.13 – Renuka and both were found in compromising position in the house of PW.13. Thereafter accused went to the house of PW.13 and found that deceased and PW.13 were sleeping together on same bed and both were nude. Both of them were found inebriated. Accused abused both of them and thereafter took deceased to her house and there were some altercations and exchange of words between accused and deceased. Accused again came to house of PW.13 and quarreled with her on this issue. PW.8 who is the husband of PW.13 abused for her misconduct and also abused deceased for having illicit relationship with his wife. Even accused had illicit relationship with PW.9 Narayanaswamy. There were frequent quarrels between accused and deceased in this regard. Accused is said to have assaulted deceased with means of wooden reapers and caused injuries due to which deceased last his breath. These are all the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution available even though it is termed to be somersault of evidence and even there was camouflage evidence on the part of the prosecution. But culpable homicide when not amounts to murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender/felonies/accused having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. This issue has been addressed in the case of Raj Paul Singh v. State (2012) 10 SCC 144 . 28. The injuries on the vital and non-vital parts of body of the deceased -Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the wooden reaper by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel, it is to be seen that whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by her is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined on the given facts and circumstances of the case. PW.17 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased – Gangadharappa opined that death was homicidal death and deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries. But after lapse of nine hours the criminal law was set into motion by registering FIR as per Ex.P15. PW.17 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased – Gangadharappa opined that death was homicidal death and deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries. But after lapse of nine hours the criminal law was set into motion by registering FIR as per Ex.P15. But intention and knowledge are the important elements in the criminal jurisprudence. It is fallacious to contend that when the death is caused by a single blow, clause third is not attracted and therefore, it would not amount to murder. The ingredient ‘intention’ in that clause gives clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not. Even the post mortem report issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased cannot be made sole basis of conviction once eye-witnesses evidence is rejected. Post-mortem report should be in corroboration with evidence of eye-witnesses and cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach conclusion for conviction. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2013 SC 264 ). 29. In the criminal justice delivery system, where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other witnesses and evidence of witnesses who apprehended the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore, charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature. Therefore, it is relevant to refer Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding proved, disproved and not proved in respect of facts. Section 4 of the Evidence Act is relating to may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof. But keeping in view the aforesaid provision, in respect of provocation must be grave, the test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. 30. But keeping in view the aforesaid provision, in respect of provocation must be grave, the test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. 30. In the instant case, accused – Munirathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa who was having some illicit relationship with PW.13 –Renuka and on the fateful day the deceased was found in compromising position in the house of PW.13 and when accused went to the house of PW.13 found that deceased and PW.13 were sleeping together on same bed and both were nude. PW.13 is none other than the wife of PW.8 – Venkatesh. But even though PW.8 and PW.13 were subjected to examination on the part of prosecution, but they did not support the case of the prosecution relating to illicit relationship. But looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear that it was premeditated murder. On the fateful day deceased informed to accused that he was going to meet his employer for collecting his salary to bring provisions. Thereafter, through neighbor of PW.13, accused got information that her husband was sleeping with PW.13. Thereafter she went to house of PW.13 and found that both of them were sharing the same bed and they were nude. There was some quarrel ensuing in between PW.13 and accused – Munirathnamma and deceased – Gangadharappa. Subsequent to that act of deceased with PW.13 in terms of some illicit relationship in between them, the same had come to the knowledge of PW.8 – Venkatesh who had returned to his house and picked up quarrel with PW.13 and also went to the house of deceased and abused him for having illicit relationship with his wife. Thereafter, accused went to her house and there was some altercation took place in between deceased and accused. Accused said to have assaulted deceased with wooden reaper which marked as MO.4. Even though the dead body of deceased – Gangadharappa was lying in her house and after lapse of nine hours, the criminal law was set into motion by filing the complaint which marked at Ex.P14. Accused said to have assaulted deceased with wooden reaper which marked as MO.4. Even though the dead body of deceased – Gangadharappa was lying in her house and after lapse of nine hours, the criminal law was set into motion by filing the complaint which marked at Ex.P14. But any prudent man can infer that there was some due deliberations and discussions while making complaint initially against PW.8 and then PW.22 being the investigating officer who done the investigation thoroughly on the basis of the complaint given by accused as per Ex.P14. He secured PW.8 to the custody and interrogated him. At that time, PW.22 started suspect the accused by answers of PW.8 and thereafter, on interrogation of accused she said to have confessed her guilt. Till then, accused had given false information to the investigating officer who initiated the criminal prosecution against the real culprit/offender/accused. But in the instant case, it is relevant to refer the evidence of PW.8 wherein he has stated that he got the information about the incident relating to some illicit relationship of his wife PW.13 with deceased Gangadharappa and soon after getting information he returned to the house and took up quarrel with accused. It appears that accused felt insulted in the locality and moreover, normally no woman will tolerate that her husband was sharing bed with some other lady or having illicit relationship. The accused went to the house of PW.13 and found that PW.13 and deceased – Gangadharappa were in compromising position and were sleeping together on the same bed and both were nude and they were fully intoxicated. This fact is admitted by PW.13 and she has stated accused – Munirathnamma quarreled with her for spoiling family life. But looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, out of uncontrolled anger, that accused might have beaten her husband with an intention to cause injury. Due to the said event her husband sustained injuries and last his breath. But it was not premeditated murder and she might not have thought that by such assault he would die or on that day such an incident may take place. Therefore, the trial Court observed that it cannot be considered that with an intention to kill the deceased, she assaulted on him and the case made out by the prosecution is not probable. Therefore, the trial Court observed that it cannot be considered that with an intention to kill the deceased, she assaulted on him and the case made out by the prosecution is not probable. Therefore, provisions of Section 300 Exception 4 is applicable to the facts of present case which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the acts of the accused are culpable homicide, which does not amount to murder and is punishable under Section 304 of IPC. The reliances of AIR 2013 SC 2878 – Joydeb and others vs. State of West Bengal and so also, reliance of 1998 (3) ALD 569 , Mirza Hameed Ali Baig @ Hameed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh were also cited by the trial Court in its judgment. In these reliances initially prosecution had to prove guilt of the accused and thereafter accused had to give explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the spot mahazar at Ex.P4 was conducted by the investigating officer. But only on the basis of complaint filed by accused – Munirathnamma initially the case was registered. But PW.4, PW.20, PW.22 they are the witnesses even though they had subscribed their signatures. But PW.22 and PW.4 being the witness relating to spot mahazar at Ex.P4 even PW.22 stated in his evidence about preparing the spot mahazar at Ex.P4. PW.4 says in his evidence that he signed(LTM) in the house of accused, but he pleads ignorance about the contents of the document. Similarly, PW.20 who had been subjected to examination and also subscribed his signature at Ex.P4 in Chikkajala police station and he does not know the contents of said documents. But evidence of PW.4 and PW.20 inclusive of evidence of PW.22 it requires re-appreciation in this appeal in a greater care and also close scrutiny, if not, the accused who is gravamen of accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall be some substantial miscarriage of justice. 31. PW.20 is the brother of the accused and he has subscribed his signature at Ex.P4 even he pleads ignorance about the cause of death of deceased. 31. PW.20 is the brother of the accused and he has subscribed his signature at Ex.P4 even he pleads ignorance about the cause of death of deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that he was unaware about the cause of death of husband of his sister. PW.4 has totally given a goby to the fulcrum of Ex.P4 and not supported the theory of prosecution. The same was observed by the trial Court for arrival of conclusion and held conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part – II of IPC. 32. PW.22 being the investigating officer held inquest over the dead body of deceased-Gangadharappa and the same was witnessed by PW.5 to PW.7. They have subscribed their signatures on Ex.P5 – inquest report. He noticed some injuries as per Ex.P5 and external injuries mentioned in Ex.P7 are similar to the injuries mentioned in Ex.P5. But PW.5 to 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution even though subjected to examination but nothing worthwhile have been elicited on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Even PW.22 has narrated in his evidence about the seizure of cloths found on the dead body which were received from the hospital. In the cross-examination, nothing was brought out to show that the said clothes were not of the deceased – Gangadharappa. 33. PW.19 is the police constable who took the records to the FSL and he is not a material witness. Though the case was registered on the complaint of accused, later on it was found that she herself was culprit relating to eliminating her husband Gangadharappa by infliction of injuries over his person. In view of the evidence of those witnesses and even the fulcrum of spot mahazar at Ex.P4 but Ex.P14 – complaint and even the confession made by her that she went to house of neighbours of PW.13 to inform them that PW.8 murdered her husband. But none of them while examining the court stated the said fact. Therefore, her defence is not probable for committing murder of PW.8, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence. But the trial Court held that the prosecution has made out the case against the accused that too be the homicidal death of her husband. But none of them while examining the court stated the said fact. Therefore, her defence is not probable for committing murder of PW.8, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence. But the trial Court held that the prosecution has made out the case against the accused that too be the homicidal death of her husband. In this regard it is relevant to record the reliance of Anwar Ali and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the issues of murder trial insofar as circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failing to establish and prove complete chain of events – contradictions and lacunae in prosecution case noted by the trial Court, held, were not minor in nature – Acquittal restored. In footnote-B even Section 378 – appeal against acquittal – scope and ambit of Section 378 and interference by High Court in appeal against acquittal – principles summarised and also various judgments have been referred. Further, in respect of criminal trial – circumstantial evidence – generally – when can conviction be solely based on circumstantial evidence – principles summarised. It is held that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. These issues have been extensively addressed at paras 15 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment. 34. In the judgment of Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 relating to doctrine of innocence, it is held that criminal trial – proof – burden and onus of proof – reversal of burden of proof – when permissible – presumptions – presumption of innocence – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 14. It is held “every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. However, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. It is held “every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. However, subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of the presumption, the same may not lead to any injustice of mistaken conviction.” In the same reliance it is also held that in a criminal trial – circumstantial evidence – generally – burden of proof – in case of circumstantial evidence burden on prosecution is always greater. Further, in respect of criminal trial – circumstantial evidence – motive – relevance – absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused – in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to a certain extent. In this judgment several reliance have been placed and also referred. 35. Whereas in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 it is relevant to refer para 163 which reads as under: “We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations: Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 36. In the instant case based upon the complaint filed by accused – Munirathnamma criminal law was set into motion and the complaint was filed by her after lapse of 9 days even though the death occurred in her house and that too be death of her husband. But Gangadharappa was having illicit relationship with PW-13 Renuka and on the fateful day they were in compromising position. On receipt of said information, the accused went to the house of PW.13 and found that deceased and PW.13 were sleeping together on the same bed and both of them were nude. Accused abused both of them and there was some altercation that took place in between accused and deceased. Even on information of the said incident received by PW.8, he abused PW.13 for her misconduct and also there was some altercations that took place between him, deceased and accused. Thereafter, accused is said to have caused injuries by means of wooden reaper due to which deceased died. The death occurred in her house but it is required to find who is the real accused/offender/felony who caused death of deceased – Gangadharappa. Even though accused had illicit relationship with PW.9 – Narayanaswamy, but except PW.22 none of the witnesses have stated about the illicit relationship between accused and PW.9. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that he does not know the accused. Even though the trial Court observed this in the impugned judgment, but arrived at a conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that he does not know the accused. Even though the trial Court observed this in the impugned judgment, but arrived at a conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. But it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in the case of State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra and another ( AIR 2021 SC 1375 ) wherein the scope of Sections 302, 201, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 136 – murder – appeal against acquittal – accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased by applying electric shock to him after administering some poisonous substance to him – post mortem report reveals cause of death was electric shock, suffered by deceased within 24 hours from time of examination – Doctor opined that deceased was intoxicated with alcohol and death was either accidental or homicidal but not suicidal – no conclusive evidence that death was homicidal – mere fact that deceased was lying dead at room held by accused and that accused had informed complainant that deceased had been lying motionless and still and not responding to shouts and calls, does not establish that accused murdered deceased – acquittal proper.” 37. But in the instant case, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part II of and Section 177 of IPC, 1860. It is observed that the accused is not charged for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC but she is charged under Section 302 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 304 of IPC and 302 of IPC are one and the same except, Exception No.4 and the offence is punishable with lesser punishment. Therefore, she can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 38. Accused – Munirathnamma is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa and his body was lying in her house as resultant of death by causing some injuries over his person which indicates in the PM report as per Ex.P7. Therefore, she can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 38. Accused – Munirathnamma is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa and his body was lying in her house as resultant of death by causing some injuries over his person which indicates in the PM report as per Ex.P7. But learned counsel for the accused Sri Deepak Narajji has produced the reliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1459/2005 of Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky vs. State of Punjab wherein it is observed “Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved, the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute. Insofar as circumstantial evidence – nature of injuries on person of accused – does not form circumstantial evidence to prove prosecution case.” In the said reliance by referring to the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, it was observed that “We can fully understand that though the case superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof, a moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.” 39. Even the concept of evidentiary value of hostile witness – statement of hostile witness can be examined to the extent that it supports the case of prosecutor (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 2408 ). Even the reliability of hostile witness – it is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence (Koti Lakshman Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 SC 210 ). It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence (Koti Lakshman Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 SC 210 ). Further it is relevant to refer Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relating to quality of evidence. In criminal justice delivery system it is always the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal, 2008 (8) JT 650 ). The requirement as to number of witnesses, the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court as to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. 40. In the instant case, deceased – Gangadharappa even if his character is taken he was having some illicit relationship with PW.13 – Renuka who is none other than the wife of PW.8 – Venkatesh. Even though PW.13 and PW.8 were subjected to examination, but their evidence runs contrary to the statement recorded by PW.22 being the investigating officer. Accused – Munirathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa and he was also having illicit relationship with PW.9 – Narayanaswamy as alleged. But PW.9 and PW.20 who is the brother of accused did not support anything about her character or even the demeanor relating to the concept of having illicit relationship. Accused – Munirathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa and he was also having illicit relationship with PW.9 – Narayanaswamy as alleged. But PW.9 and PW.20 who is the brother of accused did not support anything about her character or even the demeanor relating to the concept of having illicit relationship. The dead body of deceased – Gangadharappa was lying in her house and infliction of injuries by means of wooden reaper which has been used to assault but even in the entirety of the case of the prosecution and so also, having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and also rescanning of the evidence, since it is found that there is some camouflage of the evidence and there shall be somersault of the entirety of the evidence of the prosecution. When the doubt has arised in the mind of the Court, the benefit of such doubt should accrue in favour of the accused alone. Therefore, in the instant case, mere because accused – Munirathnamma who is none other than the wife of deceased – Gangadharappa inflicted injuries as per PM report it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has produced cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabalise that accused has committed the murder of her husband and done to death by assaulting with means of wooden reaper. The entire case of the prosecution are found to be clouds of doubts and when there is doubt that has been occurred in the mind of court, in the criminal justice delivery system, the benefit of such doubt shall be extended to the accused alone. Accordingly, for the reasons and findings stated above, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Consequently, the accused is deserving for acquittal for the offence under Sections 304 Part II of IPC and 177 of IPC. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Crl.A.No.248/2016 filed under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.A.No.372/2016 filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C by the Appellant/State are hereby rejected. Crl.A.No.36/2016 filed by appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Crl.A.No.248/2016 filed under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.A.No.372/2016 filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C by the Appellant/State are hereby rejected. Crl.A.No.36/2016 filed by appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 14.10.2015 rendered by the V Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.15054/2014 is hereby set-aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 177 of IPC, 1860. The bail bond if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.