Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03. 01. 1995 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in s. T. No. 119/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 318 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S. I. for 1 year. By this judgment only, the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 109 whereas the co-accused namely Sheikh Mehboob was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 27. 06. 1992 at about 6 p. m. , dead body of a newly born child was found floating in a well, situated near the house of Dandu Kahar in village chhaigaon Makhan. Inquiry into the merg (death case), registered upon information given by Deepak (PW8) revealed that - (a) the child was born out of an illicit relationship between the appellant and Sheikh Mehboob and (b) after giving birth to the child in the night intervening 26th and 27th June, 1992, she handed him over to Sheikh Mehboob. ( 3. ) IKHTIYAR Bi (PW7), mother of the appellant, did not corroborate the prosecution version. She even denied the factum of the appellants pregnancy. However, Dr. Smt. Raksha Sharma (PW1), who had the occasion to examine her on 10. 07. 1992, categorically opined that the appellant had delivered a full term child within 14 to 21 days. In the cross-examination, she further explained that it was not a case of abortion. The physical features described by the lady doctor in the report (Ex. P-1) were sufficient to fortify her conclusion. ( 4. ) DEEPAK (PW8) reaffirmed the fact that it was he who had informed the police about the dead body. His statement drew support from the testimony of the Investigating Officer namely L. S. Chauhan (PW9), who further deposed that after inquest proceedings, body of the dead child was sent for post-mortem. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW2), cause of the childs death was asphyxia on account of compression over chest, abdomen and skull and not due to drowning. ( 5. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW2), cause of the childs death was asphyxia on account of compression over chest, abdomen and skull and not due to drowning. ( 5. ) PLACING implicit reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in Emperor v. Kuppammal A. I. R. 1941 Madras 1, learned senior Counsel has strenuously contended that guilt of the appellant could not be held to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in absence of cogent evidence as to (i) the identity of the dead child as her child and (ii) her presence near or about the well. However, these facts, though relevant to the charge of murder of a new born infant, were not required to be established in a trial relating to the offence of concealment of birth by secret disposal of childs dead body. As explained by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in queen-Empress v. Radha (1899) 1 Bom LR 155, to support a conviction under S. 318 of IPC, it is sufficient to show that a child was born. In other words, the offence under S. 318 becomes complete when birth of child is concealed by any means. This apart, it is not the law of the country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible evidences and circumstances which may exonerate him. If those facts are within the special knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. In this view of the matter, the non-explanation of the circumstances leading to removal of a newly born child from appellants care and custody was the strongest possible circumstance to reject the plea of false implication (Gajendra Singh v. State of U. P. AIR 1975 SC 1703 referred to ). Further, it was not her defence that custody of the child was given to the co-accused for his nurturing and upbringing. For these reasons, the conviction in question deserves to be maintained as well-merited. ( 6. ) THE offence was committed at the time when the appellant was a young unmarried girl aged about 18 years. Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances including that a considerable period of nearly 17 years has already elapsed thereafter, interests of justice would be met that if she is released on probation. ( 7. ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances including that a considerable period of nearly 17 years has already elapsed thereafter, interests of justice would be met that if she is released on probation. ( 7. ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction of the appellant under Section 318 of the IPC is hereby affirmed but the consequent custodial sentence is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the appellant shall be released on probation of good conduct, under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year commencing from the date of bond and, in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ( 8. ) APPELLANT Fareeda is directed to remain present for the purpose in the trial Court at Khandwa on 03. 12. 2009 at 11 a. m. positively. Appeal partly allowed.