The judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.8.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, in Sessions Case NO.79/2011 is appealed by the State questioning the acquittal of the accused.

2. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.1 is serving in the Indian Army; he had love with accused No.2; both the accused are of the same native place; intimacy and love of accused resulted in pregnancy of accused NO.2; the parents of both the accused were not agreeable for the marriage of both the accused; fearing about the negative consequences, accused No.2 did not disclose about her pregnancy to her parents, but informed the same to accused No.1; on the request of accused No.1, accused No.2 came to Bangalore from her native place; both the accused hired a house and lived life as husband and wife; thereafter, they decided to marry, both went to a temple at Domalur and married; their marriage was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Indiranagar, Bangalore; thereafter, accused No.2 gave birth to a female child at Air Force Command Hospital, Bangalore, on 6.3.2011. However, the factum of such marriage was suppressed by them before the parents of both the accused as well as the villagers. Having apprehended that the accused would not be allowed inside the village if the villagers come to know that accused No.2 was pregnant without marriage, they decided to kill the child and thereafter, to go to the village; they chose Sri Kukke Subramanya for abandoning the child and hence, they went to Kukke Subramanya on 31.3.2011 in a bus; and after alighting in the bus stand they hired an autorickshaw and went to bathing point at Kumaradhara river where the pilgrims take holy dip. Accused No.1 took the child to an isolated place on the river bank and killed the child by suffocating the same. He buried the child in the sand and came back to the place where accused No.2 was sitting and informed her; they came back to the bus stand to board the bus; the auto drivers and public at large who had seen the accused with child while going to bathing point returning back with empty hands suspected some foul play, questioned them about whereabouts of the child; being dissatisfied with the answer given by the accused, they took the accused to Subramanya Police Station, wherein the accused disclosed their identity and showed the marriage certificate; after recording the statement of the accused, the police let the accused go from Kukke Subramanya in as much as they did not suspect the accused.

4. On 4.4.2011, that is four days after the incident, P.W.1, whose house was near the Asalesha Petrol Pump of Sri Kukke Subramanya, saw a street dog carrying carcass/ dead body inside her compound; she chased the dog and the dog left the dead body inside the compound. P.W.1 after seeing the street dog carrying carcass of a female child alerted her tenant by name Mr.MahabalaP.W.13 who is the Forest Officer; P.W.13, in turn brought the aforementioned fact to the police; P.W.19 Sub-Inspector of Police visited the spot and shifted the body to the hospital. P.W.1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 which was registered in Crime No.17/2011 in Subramanya Police Station. P.Ws.20 and 21 are the Inspectors; they conducted the investigation and ultimately, final investigation report came to be filed by P.W.21.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses and got marked 37 exhibits and 2 Material Objects. The defence did not adduce any evidence. As mentioned supra, the trial Court, on evaluation of the record, acquitted the accused by concluding that the prosecution has not proved its case for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and that charge under Section 317 of IPC was not framed.

6. Sri S.Rachaiah, the learned High Court G