Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The judgment and order dated 9-1-2013 passed by the Prl. Sessions Court, Davangere in S.C. No. 135 of 2011 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased was teasing the sister's daughter of the accused while she was going to school; despite repeated requests, such habit of the deceased was not rectified; the accused in order to commit the murder of the deceased, took the deceased with him on 14-11-2011 at about 10.45 p.m. and assaulted him with club and thereafter caused his murder by smothering; the incident of murder has taken place in the land of the accused; however the dead body was taken to the adjoining land of P.W. 1 and the dead body was buried in the said land.

P.W. 1 while attending the routine agricultural operations in his land saw a leg protruding out of the land; immediately he informed the Police by lodging the complaint as per Ex. P. 1 on 22-11-2011, which came to be registered at 9.15 a.m. on the same day in UDR No. 19 of 2011 of Bilichodu Police Station under Section 174(c) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; the Police and the panchas visited the spot and exhumed the dead body from the land of P.W. 1; since the body was identified as that of son of P.W. 2, thereafter P.W. 2 lodged the information as per Ex. P. 2 on 22-11-2011, which came to be registered in Crime No. III of 2011 of Bilichodu Police Station for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. P.W. 26-the Deputy Superintendent of Police completed the investigation and laid charge-sheet.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses and got marked 28 exhibits and 12 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined.

4. As mentioned supra, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record acquitted the accused.

5. Sri Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader taking us through the material on record submits that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence; the prosecution has proved all the circumstances relied upon by it; the circumstances so proved will complete the entire chain of circumstances, which does not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court about the involvement of the accused in the crime; the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused inasmuch as the material on record is wholly sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is improper and incorrect.

Per contra, Sri K.V. Keshava, learned Advocate for the respondent argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

6. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are:

1. Motive for commission of the offence. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 14 in respect of the said circumstance.

2. The accused was seen last with the deceased by P.Ws. 12 and 13.

3. The recovery of club, spade and towel from the place near the scene of occurrence. The recovery was based on the voluntary statement of the accused as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Exs. P. 7 and P. 8 are the recovery panchanamas. P.W. 8 has deposed about the aspect of recovery.

4. The accused posing himself as Police attached to Tumkur Police Station called his mother (Chandramma) over phone and informed that Pradeep was murdered and his dead body is buried in the land of P.W. 1 (Jyothikumar) and that there is threat for life of the accused also. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 8, 11,15 and 16 in support of the said circumst