JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.03.2012 passed in S.C.No.1335/2010 on the file of the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City, acquitting both the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 304, 201, 120-B, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The appellant – State challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal on the grounds that is mentioned at ground Nos.1 to 12 of the appeal Memorandum. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that there was an illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 was initially staying in the house of aunt of PW-16 – Mallika. At that time, she got acquainted with PW-16. After the death of aunt of PW-16-Mallika, accused No.2 started staying in the house of PW-16. The said PW-16-Mallika got engaged to the deceased by name Krishna Kumar. Accused No.2 was intending that the marriage of PW-16 should not take place with the deceased and it should take place with accused No.1, so that she can continue her illicit relationship with accused No.1 staying in the house of PW-16. However, PW-16 was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she was already engaged to the deceased. So accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to commit murder of Krishna Kumar and both of them conspired to execute their plan. Further averment is that on account of criminal conspiracy entered into between the accused, on 12.07.2010, at about 10.00 a.m., accused No.1 came to the house of the deceased and told him that there was a construction work of three storied building at Kolar and stating so, took him on the motorcycle belonging to the deceased bearing registration No.KA 01 X4990. The accused thereafter, purchased a knife from the shop of PW-6 and took the deceased and made him to consume liquor, thereafter, took him near Gorikunte Water Tank, in Allepally Reserve Forest Area, Palamaneru Taluk of Chitoor District, situated within the limits of Byreddypally Police Station of Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, by stabbing Krishna Kumar on his neck with the knife committed his murder. The accused thereafter concealed the motorcycle, helmet etc., to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen himself from legal punishment. The accused thereafter concealed the motorcycle, helmet etc., to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen himself from legal punishment. A man missing case was registered in Crime No.167/2010 of Yelahanka Police Station on the complaint of the father of the deceased viz., Sri.Muniraju-PW-1 on 12.07.2010. The dead body was traced in Allepally reserve forest area within the limits of Byreddypally Police Station and the same was informed to PW-1, who along with other relatives identified the dead body as that of Krishna Kumar. A case was registered under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused persons. 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court framed the charges against accused Nos.1 and 2. For the said offences, charges were read and explained to the accused and accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed and plea were also recorded, then the matter was posted for trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses and produced the documents as Exs-P1 and P17 and also got marked material objects i.e., MOs’- 1 to 10. Thereafter, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and their statement came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined, nor any documents were marked. 7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and also after considering the material placed before it, both oral and documentary, the trial Court ultimately, had come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and by giving the benefit to the accused persons, acquitted both the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State is before this Court. 8. We have heard the arguments of the learned SPP for the appellant-State and also learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent – accused. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State is before this Court. 8. We have heard the arguments of the learned SPP for the appellant-State and also learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent – accused. 9. Learned SPP during the course of his argument made the submission that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident and case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, made the submission that the deceased was last seen in the Company of the accused persons and in this regard, the prosecution placed the material by way of evidence of PWs’ -1, 10, and 17. Hence, he made the submission that the factum of deceased last seen in the company of the accused No.1 has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution with the help of oral evidence of said three witnesses, so also the documents produced in that regard. 10. Regarding the motive aspect is concerned, learned Additional SPP made the submission that the marriage of PW-16 – Mallika was engaged with the deceased – Krishna Kumar and accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit connection between them. Accused No.2 was staying in the house of aunt of PW-16 initially. Therefore, accused No.2 conspires with accused No.1 to avoid the marriage of deceased – Krishna Kumar with Mallika and accused No.2 insisted PW-16- Mallika to marry with accused No.1. After the death of aunt of PW-16, the accused No.2 started to stay in the house of PW-16, in an idea that if PW-16 gets married with accused No.1, she can also stay with them and she can continue her illicit relationship with accused No.1. Learned Additional SPP further made the submission in this regard referring to the evidence of PW-16 – Mallika and made the submission that her evidence is worth believable and she has consistently deposed in her evidence about the force made by accused No.2 to marry accused No.1. It is also his submission that on one occasion both accused called her to the nearby temple and in the presence of accused No.1, accused No.2 told Mallika to marry accused No.1. When PW-16 flatly denied to marry accused No.1, both accused posed life threat to her stating that they will not leave her as well as deceased-Krishna Kumar. It is also his submission that on one occasion both accused called her to the nearby temple and in the presence of accused No.1, accused No.2 told Mallika to marry accused No.1. When PW-16 flatly denied to marry accused No.1, both accused posed life threat to her stating that they will not leave her as well as deceased-Krishna Kumar. Hence, he submitted that looking to these materials, the prosecution established the fact of motive of accused Nos.1 and 2 for committing the murder of Krishna Kumar and also establish the factum of conspiring between two accused persons. He also made the submission regarding the recoveries effected at the instance of accused No.1 is motor cycle and helmet, so also the recovery of knife and chappal belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of accused No.1. In this connection, learned Additional SPP has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-6 – shop owner, in whose shop the accused No.1 purchased the knife. Referring to these materials, he made the submission that even the recoveries which are effected at the instance of accused No.1 has been established with the cogent and satisfactory materials produced by the prosecution. Sofar as the identity of the deceased is concerned, he drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-1 and made the submission that though the body said to have been decomposed, but the father of the deceased identified the body by looking to the clothes, dollar, embroidery of the shirt and label of the tailor. In this connection, learned SPP also drawn our attention to the oral evidence of PWs’-1, 9, 10 and 17 and also mahazar in connection with the seizure of those clothes belonging to the deceased. He also drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-14 and made the submission that two days earlier to the incident, accused No.1, came to the shop of PW-14 and enquired about the residence of deceased– Krishna Kumar. Hence, he submitted that the evidence of PW-14 also going to establish the motive aspect of the accused in making preparation for committing the murder of Krishna Kumar. Hence, he made the submission that looking to the prosecution material both oral and documentary, the prosecution was able to establish satisfactorily that accused Nos.1 and 2 herein who have committed the murder of deceased – Krishna Kumar. Hence, he made the submission that looking to the prosecution material both oral and documentary, the prosecution was able to establish satisfactorily that accused Nos.1 and 2 herein who have committed the murder of deceased – Krishna Kumar. Inspite of these materials, learned FTC Judge has not considered these materials in its proper perspective and wrongly came to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and ultimately, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, learned Additional SPP made the submission that the judgment and order passed by the Court below is patently illegal and it is not sustainable in law. Therefore, he made the submission that to allow the appeal, to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal and to convict the respondents – accused for the charges leveled against them. 11. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae made the submission that so far as the last seen theory is concerned, it is not satisfactorily established by the prosecution and in this connection he also made reference to the prosecution material both oral and documentary and made the submission that though it is the case that accused No.1 came to the house of the deceased, took the deceased along with him in the vehicle belonging to the deceased, but looking to the evidence and the cross examination portion of those witnesses, their evidence is not worth believable. Hence, he submitted that it is not satisfactorily established. He further made the submission that from 12.07.2010 upto 19.07.2010, no complaint has been filed by the family members of the deceased atleast for missing of the said person. There was a gap of 7 days. It is also his submission atleast on 19.07.2010, when the family members came to know that there is a murder of deceased – Krishna Kumar, then also immediately, compliant was not filed and it was only on 31.07.2010 after about lapse of 11 days, the prosecution has not made any explanation about the delay. 12. So far as the identity of the body of the deceased is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae drawn our attention to the evidence of PWs’-1, 9 and 10. He made the submission that looking to the evidence of PW-9, he clearly admitted in the cross examination that he was not able to identify the body of the deceased. 12. So far as the identity of the body of the deceased is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae drawn our attention to the evidence of PWs’-1, 9 and 10. He made the submission that looking to the evidence of PW-9, he clearly admitted in the cross examination that he was not able to identify the body of the deceased. Looking to the evidence of PW-10, it is his submission that though prosecution case goes to show the banian was seized from the body of the deceased, but PW-1’s evidence goes to show that on that day, the deceased did not worn the banian at all. He also drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-16 at paragraph No.5, so also the inquest mahazar, referring to these materials, he made the submission that the body was not at all in an identifiable position. Regarding the recoveries are concerned, he referred to the evidence of PWs’-11 and 12, so also, oral evidence of PWs’-22, 13, 20 and made the submission that looking to all these materials together it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the alleged recoveries to the satisfaction of the Court. Even with regard to the motive aspect of the prosecution case is concerned, he made the submission referring to the evidence of PW-1 at page No.66 of paper book and evidence of PW-16 at paragraph No.10. It is his further submission that the alleged engagement of PW-16 – Mallika with the deceased – Krishna Kumar, it is the fabricated story of the prosecution only to falsely involve accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case. 13. In view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as the identity was not established satisfactorily, the prosecution ought to have conducted Test Identification Parade to establish the clear identity of the accused persons. Hence, learned Amicus Curiae made the submission that all these aspects were properly considered and appreciated by the learned Fast Track Court Judge and rightly acquitted both the accused person from the charges. No illegality has been committed and there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal and hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is to be dismissed. 14. No illegality has been committed and there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal and hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is to be dismissed. 14. We have perused the grounds in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 22, the documents Exs.P.1 to P.17 with sub markings and also considered the submissions made by learned Additional SPP for the appellant and the learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent accused. 15. With regard to the last seen theory projected by the prosecution, let us refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 (complainant) is the father of the deceased Krishnakumar. He has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that on 11.7.2010, Rajamma called his son Krishnakumar and at 8.00 p.m. on the same day, Krishnakumar came back from the house of Rajamma. On 12.7.2010 at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m., he went for marking the foundation in a site. At that time, Pushpalatha, daughter of the complainant, Nethra, Srinivasa so also the wife of the complainant Bhagyamma were in the house. At about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Krishnakumar came along with accused No.1 Narayana Reddy on the TVS vehicle belonging to the deceased. P.W.1 has further deposed that the deceased introduced the accused to him as his friend. The deceased also told him that there is some work of accused No.1 in the construction site at Kolar. He will go and come back in the noon time at 12.00 O’clock. At that time, he told the deceased that the marriage is nearing. There is so many works to be attended, for that, the deceased told him that he will come immediately. P.W.1 has further deposed that during the night at 11.00 p.m., when he came back to the house after attending the work, the family members told him that at 8.00 a.m., one person came and took Krishnakumar along with the other. For that P.W.1 told them that the said person came to him also and that it was on Monday dated 12.7.2010. Even though they waited till evening, his son Krishnakumar did not come back to the house. He has further deposed that he phoned to mobile phone of Krishnakumar. For that P.W.1 told them that the said person came to him also and that it was on Monday dated 12.7.2010. Even though they waited till evening, his son Krishnakumar did not come back to the house. He has further deposed that he phoned to mobile phone of Krishnakumar. Though he tried to both the sim, but the mobile was switched off. They made search of the deceased at Kolar and other places, but even then, he was not traced. On 18.7.2010, he went to Yelahanka police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. In the cross examination, P.W.1 has deposed that they were not having licence for doing the contract work by himself and Krishnakumar. Krishnakumar went at 7.00 a.m. on 12.7.2010 to attend the foundation work of one Ravi of Kattigenahalli. At that time, himself, son Ravi and one Munigowda only were present at the said place. Ravi and Munigowda seen accused No.1 coming to the said place along with his son. Earlier to 12.07.2010, he had not seen the accused. Krishnakumar never told about accused No.1 Narayana Reddy before him. He came to know that accused No.1 is the native of village near Byreddy Palya and he is working in a company at Sarjapur as watchman. When Muniraju and his son came to the place, where he was attending the foundation work, he had not enquired with Narayana Reddy that whether it is the contract work or it is the tender work. Normally, his son Krishnakumar, whenever having the work used to leave home by 9.00 a.m. and come back by 6.30 p.m. If there was urgent work, he used to inform the family members over phone. P.W.1 has further deposed that on 12.07.2010, when he came back to house at 11.30 p.m., Srinivasaiah his brother-in-law, told that some person of Kolar came stating that he will assign contract work to Krishnakumar and took Krishnakumar along with him. Even on the date of giving evidence, himself and his family members did not know whether the said contract work was in respect of a house or site. On 12.07.2010, when the son of complainant went from the said place of Ravi, he had not at all spoken to him over phone. 16. Even on the date of giving evidence, himself and his family members did not know whether the said contract work was in respect of a house or site. On 12.07.2010, when the son of complainant went from the said place of Ravi, he had not at all spoken to him over phone. 16. Coming to the evidence of Pushpalatha (P.W.10), the daughter of the complainant, in her evidence in the chief examination, she has deposed that the deceased Krishnakumar was her elder brother. Her marriage was performed about 10 years back. Herself and her husband are staying in the house of her father. Accused No.1 came to their home on 12.7.2010 and he was asking that he wanted Krishnakumar for centering. In the meanwhile, Krishnakumar came to the said place and after seeing him, accused No.1 told him that Krishnakumar was the person, whom he wanted. The said person told him that there is construction work at Kolar and also he is having a site and asked the deceased Krishnakumar as to whether he is coming. For that, her brother Krishnakumar told that his marriage is nearing. Even then, he told that he will come to attend the construction work. Then accused No.1 told Krishnakumar to visit the site on that day. Her brother agreed for the same and Krishnakumar told that himself and his brother-in-law together will come. But accused No.1 told that his brother-in-law need not come and asked the deceased Krishnakumar alone to come with him. On the previous day, that is on 11th, her brother went to the house of C.W.20. He left the house at 11.00 a.m. and came back on the same day at 7.00 p.m. When accused No.1 came at about 8.00 a.m., her brother just woke up and he was wearing clothes. He went along with accused No.1. Her brother went on his motorcycle along with accused No.1 and did not come back. Thereafter, after two days, they made search nearby Kolar and neighbouring places. Even then, her brother was not found. As he was not available, her father gave complaint for missing of her brother. In the cross-examination, P.W.10 has deposed that nearby their house, there is one cutting shop and the owner of the cutting shop has seen accused No.1 going along with her brother. She has admitted the suggestion that she was not knowing whether accused No.1 was working. As he was not available, her father gave complaint for missing of her brother. In the cross-examination, P.W.10 has deposed that nearby their house, there is one cutting shop and the owner of the cutting shop has seen accused No.1 going along with her brother. She has admitted the suggestion that she was not knowing whether accused No.1 was working. 17. Srinivasa (P.W.17) has deposed in his evidence that he is the brother-in-law of the complainant and Krishnakumar was his brother-in-law. Himself, Nethra, his wife Pushpa, Munikrishna and the complainant were all residing together at Yelahanka. The complainant and Munikrishna were doing the construction work. Krishnakumar was aged about 23 years and his marriage was fixed with C.W.20. There were engagement talks. P.W.17 has deposed that on 12.07.2010, he has seen accused No.1 standing in front of his house. At that time, accused No.1 came holding one paper in his hand and asked as to who is Krishnakumar. In the meanwhile, Krishnakumar came out of the house and after seeing him, accused No.1 told that he wanted Krishnakumar. At that time, Krishnakumar told that he does not know about the said person. Accused No.1 told that there is construction work of the house at Kolar and asked him to come along with him. Himself, accused No.1 and Krishnakumar went to the bus stop and at that time, accused No.1 told something to Krishnakumar. Then Krishnakumar told P.W.17 that he need not go along with them. Accused No.1 and Krishnakumar went on the bike of the Krishnakumar. Even after three days, Krishnakumar did not come back. He had not attended the phone calls. In spite of search, he was not traced. Then complaint was lodged at Yelahanka Police Station. In the cross-examination, P.W.17 has deposed that he does not know about the transactions of Krishnakumar and he does not know the place where Krishnakumar was working. Before 12.07.2010, he was not knowing about accused No.1. Krishnakumar had also not mentioned the name of accused No.1 in any of the documents. On 12.07.2010, when accused No.1 came, the complainant was not in the house. He had not at all called Krishnakumar over mobile phone. But himself, his brother-in-law and his friends Bruisly and Umesh, went in search of Krishnakumar. They did not go to the house of Mallika to enquire as to whether Krishnakumar came there or not. On 12.07.2010, when accused No.1 came, the complainant was not in the house. He had not at all called Krishnakumar over mobile phone. But himself, his brother-in-law and his friends Bruisly and Umesh, went in search of Krishnakumar. They did not go to the house of Mallika to enquire as to whether Krishnakumar came there or not. He denied the suggestion that on 12.07.2010, neither himself nor his wife were stayed in the house of the complainant. He denied further suggestion that on that date, accused No.1 had not at all come to the house of the complainant nor he had taken Krishnakumar along with him to attend the work at Kolar. He denied the further suggestion that he is falsely deposing that himself, Krishnakumar and accused No.1 went upto the bus stand and thereafter, Krishnakumar sent him back. Accordingly, he returned to the house. 18. Looking to the evidence of these three witnesses, the complaint came to be filed only on 18.07.2010, even though the case of the complainant was that his son Krishnakumar left his house on 12.07.2010 and did not return to the house. No immediate complaint was filed for missing of Krishnakumar. Only on 18.07.2010, the complaint was filed. Therefore, for 7-8 days, no such complaint was filed before the police informing at least that Krishnakumar was missing and he was not traceable. Apart from that, looking to the evidence of these three witnesses, there is no consistency in their evidence. But P.W.1-complainant, at one breadth, deposed that Krishnakumar left the house in the morning and went to the site of one Ravi to attend the foundation work and at about 11.30 a.m., accused No.1 along with the deceased Krishnakumar came to the said place and he met him at the said place. But P.W.1, at another breadth, deposed in the cross-examination that he came to house at 11.30 a.m. and he was informed by the family members about accused No.1 coming to the house and taking the deceased Krishnakumar along with him. Therefore, this evidence of the complainant P.W.1 goes to show that he came to know about accused No.1 taking Krishnakumar from his house only when he was informed by the family members after he coming to the house. Therefore, this evidence of the complainant P.W.1 goes to show that he came to know about accused No.1 taking Krishnakumar from his house only when he was informed by the family members after he coming to the house. While contrary to this, in the examination in chief, P.W.1 has deposed that they came to the said place itself and both of them went on the vehicle belonging to the deceased Krishnakumar. Even with regard to the proximity of accused No.1 taking Krishnakumar and lodging of the complaint, we have already observed that there is gap of 7-8 days and the complaint with regard to the alleged murder is concerned, it was only on 31.07.2010. Though on 19.07.2010, it is the case that they came to know about the death of Krishnakumar from Andhra police, even then, no immediate complaint was filed. But it was filed only on 31.07.2010. Apart from this, P.W.10, in his evidence, has deposed that even the barber shop owner also knows about the coming of accused No.1 and taking the deceased along with him. But the said person had not been examined. No doubt, the Additional SPP while arguing the case submitted that the barber had left the said saloon shop. 19. Regarding the aspect of motive is concerned, it is the prosecution case that the marriage of Mallika (P.W.16) was fixed with deceased Krishnakumar. It is also the prosecution case that there illicit connection between accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 was staying in the house of one Vimalamma, the aunt of Mallika (P.W.16). Accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired between themselves to eliminate Krishnakumar so that accused No.1 can marry Mallika (P.W.16) and accused No.2 was also planning that if Mallika was given in marriage to accused No.1, she could also stay in their house and could continue the illicit connection with accused No.1. 20. In this connection, the prosecution has examined Mallika (P.W.16), who in her evidence, in the examination-in-chief, has deposed that her father Abbaiappa expired 15 years back and she was staying in her own house at Sarjapur along with her elder brother Sathish Babu and her mother Rajamma. She had studied upto 7th standard. Her mother was doing the agriculture work. P.W.16 has further deposed that she is attending to the house hold work. Her brother runs Tata Sumo vehicle on hire basis. She had studied upto 7th standard. Her mother was doing the agriculture work. P.W.16 has further deposed that she is attending to the house hold work. Her brother runs Tata Sumo vehicle on hire basis. Vimalamma is her aunt who is staying at Marathahalli. As she used to go to her aunt’s house along with her mother, she knew that her aunt was staying at Marathahalli. Accused No.2 Lakshmamma was staying in her aunt’s house. Her mother took P.W.16 to her aunt’s house, and at that time, she got acquaintance with accused No.2. P.W.16 has further deposed that now she is aged 20 years. Her marriage was fixed with Krishnakumar. On 16.05.2010, engagement ceremony was performed. But the marriage date was fixed in the month of August 2010. P.W.16 has further deposed that one week after the engagement, accused No.2 took her to the apartment at Marathahalli stating that watchman in the apartment wanted to see her. Accused No.2 took her after informing her mother. When she went to the said place, accused No.1 was talking over phone with somebody. She called accused No.1 to the said place. Then, accused No.2 took her to the watchman and then, she showed her to accused No.1 stating that the girl is beautiful and that accused No.2 has brought her. Thereafter, accused No.2 told accused No.1 to marry the said girl. Accused No.2 said P.W.16 to get marry with accused No.1. However, P.W.16 said that already the marriage engagement was performed and except that boy, she cannot marry any other person. Accused No.2 told not to marry the son of the complainant because he is not the good person and insisted her to marry accused No.1. For that, P.W.16 denied and came back to her house. One month thereafter, again, accused No.1 took her to Marathahalli bridge. Even at that place, she insisted P.W.16 to marry accused No.1. At that time also, she told that it is not possible and both the accused persons told that they will see her and both of them went at certain distance and came back. Again, P.W.16 was brought back to her house. Accused No.2 took her nearby Shanimahatma temple. She told her that she phoned to accused No.1 and called him. Even at that place, accused No.2 was insisting her to marry accused No.1. She did not agree for the same. Again, P.W.16 was brought back to her house. Accused No.2 took her nearby Shanimahatma temple. She told her that she phoned to accused No.1 and called him. Even at that place, accused No.2 was insisting her to marry accused No.1. She did not agree for the same. Nearby the temple, both the accused persons threatened her that if she did not marry accused No.1, they will commit her murder and also the murder of son of the complainant. Then she told that even if she dies, it does not matter. But she is not going to marry accused No.1. Thereafter, she was allowed to go back to her house, and then they left P.W.16 to her house. P.W.16 has further deposed that they got a house for rent. Herself, accused No.2 and her mother were staying there. Even, at that time, accused No.2 threatened her that they are going to eliminate her. Then, she told that she will inform the family members. For that, accused No.2 told that she will eliminate them also. Thereafter, aunt of accused No.2 expired. Accused No.2 came to house of P.W.16 and started to reside in the said house itself. From the said place, she was going to attend the work. From there, Accused No.2 called her over phone and said that in case, she informs the same in the work place, they will not spare her and even they will commit the murder of their family members. P.W.16 has further deposed that because of fear of accused No.2, she did not tell anything before the family members. Thereafter, accused No.1 called her over phone and insisted her to marry him. She told that she will not marry him. Accused No.2 after coming to house phoned to accused No.1 and threatened her that they are going to commit the murder of the person who is going to marry her. Accused No.2 phoned her informing them that they have eliminated her husband and should not inform to anybody and in case, she inform, they commit her murder also. Her mobile number is 9900525477. P.W.16 has deposed that she has forgotten the mobile number of the Accused No.2. In the cross-examination, P.W.16 has deposed that the deceased Krishnakumar is not her relative. Even her brothers did not know about the family members of the Krishnakumar. Her mobile number is 9900525477. P.W.16 has deposed that she has forgotten the mobile number of the Accused No.2. In the cross-examination, P.W.16 has deposed that the deceased Krishnakumar is not her relative. Even her brothers did not know about the family members of the Krishnakumar. She does not know the house number of Vimalamma where she was residing. The said house was her own house. She does not know that since how many years, accused No.2 was staying in the house of her aunt. She does not know as to whether the others know about her acquaintance with accused No.2. After the expiry of Vimalamma, she does not know as to where accused No.2 was residing and she has given her statement before the police. In her statement before the police, she has stated that after the demise of her aunt Vimalamma, accused No.2 started to stay in their house. She is not having any document to show that accused No.2 was staying in their house itself. P.W.16 has stated that she does not know the date on which accused No.2 told her not to marry Krishnakumar, he is not a good person and on what date, she insisted her to marry accused No.1. She does not know the name of watchman when she was introduced to the said watchman by accused No.2. When accused No.2 insisted her to marry accused No.1 and threatened her, at that time, she did not make attempt to lodge the complaint. When accused No.2 persistently insisted her to marry accused No.1 and posing life threat to her, she did not make attempt to inform the elders. After the engagement, Krishnakumar came to her house once and that was on Sunday. She does not remember the date. Neither the complainant nor his family members have informed her about missing of Krishnakumar and she had not enquired as to whether the said Krishnakumar had come to her house or not. She has admitted the suggestion that even till the date of her evidence, she was not informed that where Krishnakumar died and where his dead body was found. Neither Yelahanka Police nor Byreddypalli police had issued notice to her asking to give her statement. She is not in a position to say on which date she was called and in what way, she was informed. Neither Yelahanka Police nor Byreddypalli police had issued notice to her asking to give her statement. She is not in a position to say on which date she was called and in what way, she was informed. P.W.16 has admitted that she does not know who got opinion from her and who recorded her statement. But she denied the suggestion that Yelahanka police came and asked her to give her evidence. She did not know what was written in her statement. 21. So far as motive aspect is concerned, the evidence of PW16 is the only evidence on the side of prosecution. Perusing the evidence of PW16, on the first occasion when she was called and insisted by accused No.2 to marry accused No.1, she denied to marry accused No.2. At that time, accused No.1 posed life threat to her and even informed that they are going to eliminate her. If that is the case, we are unable to understand as to how P.W.16, even subsequently also, whenever accused No.2 used to call her to near Shanimahatma temple nearby the bridge and insisted to marry accused No.1, went to the said place. This itself raises doubt in the mind of the Court about the evidence of P.W.16 that she had been to the place where accused Nos. 2 and 1 used to call her number of times and they were asking and insisting her to marry accused No.1. Even her conduct in respect of such threat posed by accused Nos.2 and 1, she had not at all informed to family members nor did she make any attempt to file a complaint before the police. Therefore, in so far as the motive aspect is concerned, the conduct of P.W.16 in keeping mum for a long time till the death of Krishnakumar, will not inspire the confidence in the mind of the Court. 22. In the cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that from the date of engagement neither Rajamma nor Mallika spoken to him. When police brought accused Nos.1 and 2 and also Mallika, and made her to talk with him, Mallika told that she was not interested to marry Krishnakumar and she had also told that she was loving accused No.1 and for that reason, she committed the murder of Krishnakumar through accused No.1. When police brought accused Nos.1 and 2 and also Mallika, and made her to talk with him, Mallika told that she was not interested to marry Krishnakumar and she had also told that she was loving accused No.1 and for that reason, she committed the murder of Krishnakumar through accused No.1. If this evidence of P.W.1-complainant is looked into, it demolishes the case of prosecution so far as the motive aspect is concerned. Therefore, the motive as projected by the prosecution cannot be relied upon by this Court as it is not worth believable. Coming to the identity of the dead body that it is of Krishnakumar, the prosecution material goes to show that P.W.1 (complainant)-father of the deceased identified the dead body on the basis of tattoo mark and so also with the help of dollar in the neck and on the basis of clothes having embroidery border. In this connection, the prosecution wanted to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 9 and 10. Let us refer the evidence of these witnesses about the identity of the dead body. P.W.1 in his further statement before the police has stated that on 19.07.2010, morning at 9.30 a.m., the police from Byreddypalli police station of Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh came and informed that at the forest area, one male person has been murdered. They have traced the dead body. The clothes of the dead body and one dollar in the neck having the photo were shown to the complainant and asked him that if the dead body belongs to their family, they can come and identify the same. P.W.1 has further stated in his statement that he had seen the clothes, photograph of the dollar and he identified that it was of Krishnakumar. In his evidence, he has stated about the same thing and when he was informed, he went to Yelahanka police station and he was shown dollar on the dead body and chappal and also in respect of the clothes, photographs were shown to him. After seeing the photographs, he told the police that they belong to his son. They went to see the dead body at Palmaner Government Hospital. After seeing the dead body and also the belongings of the deceased like clothes, chappal and after completion of the post-mortem, he received the dead body. They performed the funeral at the native place at Tatagani. They went to see the dead body at Palmaner Government Hospital. After seeing the dead body and also the belongings of the deceased like clothes, chappal and after completion of the post-mortem, he received the dead body. They performed the funeral at the native place at Tatagani. When he saw the dead body, which was laid on the left side, there was a tattoo mark. On the basis of that, P.W.1 identified that it belongs to his son. Looking to the cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that when he went to Palmaner Government Hospital and saw the dead body, it was completely decomposed. When he saw the dead body, it was tied and thereafter, it was opened and the face was completely burnt. After seeing the dead body, he told the police that the dead body was of his son. Then his statement was recorded both by Yelahanka police and Palmaner police. He has seen the clothes of his son for the first time at Palmaner Government Hospital. 23. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.9- Munipoojappa, he is the own brother of the complainant. Looking to his evidence at Page No.91 of paper book, he has stated that when he saw the dead body, the face was not there. The body was completely decomposed and he has admitted as true that it was not at all in an identifiable position. He has denied the suggestion that the dollar, shirt collar, chappal were not shown to him and he had not identified them that they belong to Krishnakumar. The material collected by the police goes to show that even banian said to have been wore by the deceased had been seized. But the evidence of P.W.9 in the cross-examination goes to show that on that day, the deceased had not at all wore banian. 24. Come to the evidence of P.W.15-Dr.Sonia has deposed in her evidence that since February 2010, she was working in the Area hospital, Palmaner Town, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. On 19.07.2010, she received a requisition from Byreddypalli Police station to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of unknown male person, aged about 30 years. Accordingly, on 20.7.2010 between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m., she conducted post mortem examination. On 19.07.2010, she received a requisition from Byreddypalli Police station to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of unknown male person, aged about 30 years. Accordingly, on 20.7.2010 between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m., she conducted post mortem examination. P.W.15 has further deposed that, on examination, she found that, that was the male body in advanced condition of decomposition, the neck and anterior part of chest wall were decomposed and absent. The vertebral column was exposed in neck region with absence of soft tissue of the neck and tracheal cartilages. The lower part of the back of the tongue was decomposed and upper vertebra were exposed. The distant part of extractives are gnawed by wild animals with exposure of part of the remaining bones. The body was covered with crawling maggots of 1½ c.m. in size. Abdominal viscera were decomposed and present as black mass. Regarding the injuries, P.W.15-doctor has deposed that there was a stab injury death of oval shape measuring 3 x 2 cms. in size and depth of the stab cannot be determined due to decomposition present in the left flank. Regarding opinion as to the cause of death, the doctor has deposed that the exact cause of death could not be determined due to the advance decomposition of the body. According to the doctor (P.W.15), the time of death is one to two weeks prior to her PM examination. She issued post mortem report as per Ex.P13 and she has deposed that she cannot say whether the stab injury that was appeared on the dead body was antemortem or not, because the body was highly de-composed. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P.13 might have been caused by M.O.13. If a living person sustains such stab injury, it may cause death due to over bleeding. In the cross-examination, the doctor (P.W.15) has deposed that she did not take assistance of the senior doctors on 20.07.2010 while conducting post mortem. She did not notice any items over the dead body. When she conducted PM she does not know whether Palmaner police or Byreddypalli police have recovered any articles recovered in her presence over the dead body. She did not discuss regarding investigation with Palmaner police or Byreddypalli police before conducting PM examination. The police did not take any photos of the dead body in her presence. When she conducted PM she does not know whether Palmaner police or Byreddypalli police have recovered any articles recovered in her presence over the dead body. She did not discuss regarding investigation with Palmaner police or Byreddypalli police before conducting PM examination. The police did not take any photos of the dead body in her presence. Except the stab injury, she did not notice any other injuries over the dead body. There were no muscles to the said body, but only the bones were exposed. She did not notice any cut injuries over the hands and legs of the deceased. She did not notice any injuries over the ribs of the deceased. Since the body was totally decomposed, she did not notice other injuries surrounding the stab injury. She has denied the suggestion that in Ex.P.13, she has over written 12.30 and the date as 20.07.2010 and earlier, she had written it as 4.30 on 19.07.2010. Subsequently, it has been written as 20.07.2010 at 12.30 p.m. She had prepared notes at the time of conducting post mortem. On 20.07.2010, in the evening, she had written Ex.P.13. She did not discus with her senior colleagues as to how the PM report will be written. She has admitted the suggestion that neither Byreddypalli police nor Palmaner Police had shown knife (M.O.13) to her. She admitted the suggestion that the police have not obtained opinion in respect of the injury by showing weapon to her. On the basis of decomposition and also brain authorization and the presence of crawling of maggots, she had given her opinion that the time of death might be one or two weeks prior to PM examination. She did not collect skull of the dead body. She has collected femur bone from the dead body and she has given it to Byreddypallil police. Regarding the tattoo mark on the left hand of the deceased as projected by the prosecution at column No.5 of Ex.P-6, it is stated specifically that no tattoo marks were noticed. The materials go to show that on the basis of tattoo mark, P.W.1-father of the deceased identified the body of his son, whereas, the inquest proceedings is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, because it is mentioned that no such tattoo marks were found on the dead body. The materials go to show that on the basis of tattoo mark, P.W.1-father of the deceased identified the body of his son, whereas, the inquest proceedings is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, because it is mentioned that no such tattoo marks were found on the dead body. Therefore, the defence has seriously challenged the very identity of the dead body whether it is that of the deceased Krishanakumar. 25. Looking to the evidence of P.W.9, own brother of complainant, he has deposed that the dead body was not in identifiable position and it was completely burnt and decomposed. In the cross-examination, P.W.9 has admitted the suggestion that the body was completely decomposed and he was not in a position to identify the body. In view of these materials placed by the prosecution, the identity of the dead body itself is not established to the satisfaction of the Court that it is the dead body of Krishnakumar. 26. Now coming to the recovery aspect, the prosecution has contended that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement and at his instance, recoveries were effected. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 is produced as per Ex.P.17. We have perused the voluntary statement (Ex.P.17). Looking to this voluntary statement, accused No.1 has stated that if he is taken to the place, he will point out the spot to which Krishnakumar was taken, the place at which the knife was purchased, then to the Liquor shop where the deceased was made to consume the liquor and then the place at which Krishnakumar was murdered and also the place at which knife was thrown. He has also stated that he will point out the helmet and motor cycle, which were pushed into the stream. He has also stated that even he will also show the house of the accused No.2. On the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, it was the case of the prosecution that Panchanama was conducted in the presence of police and panch witnesses. It is a case of accused No.1 that he laid the police and panch witnesses to the construction place at Kolar and he produced the vehicle and also the helmet. So far as the helmet is concerned, the materials placed on record would show that it was seized at some other place along with the other articles. It was seized even earlier to 3.08.2010. So far as the helmet is concerned, the materials placed on record would show that it was seized at some other place along with the other articles. It was seized even earlier to 3.08.2010. Therefore, the case of prosecution that accused No.1 laid the police and the panch witnesses to the place and produced helmet in the presence to police itself is not acceptable in view of the prosecution material that much earlier to 3.08.2010, the helmet was seized and it was identified on 31.07.2010 by P.W.17. 27. Regarding the knife is concerned, which is marked as M.O.13, the prosecution has examined one witness P.W.6 (shop owner) stating that accused No.1 went to the said shop and purchased the knife M.O.13. The contents of panchaname for seizure of knife go to show that there were no blood stains as it was taken out from the stream. Even FSL report confirms that there were no blood stains on M.O.13. Regarding the evidence of P.W.6-the owner of shop, his evidence in the cross-examination clearly goes to show and it raises the reasonable doubt whether really accused No.1 went to the said shop and purchased the knife. With regard to the oral evidence of Pannalal (P.W.6), he has deposed that he is having shop by name Balaji Bankers and Steel Utensils at Bhadrappa Layout, Kodigellli. He has seen accused No.1. About one year back, he came to the shop along with another person on the bike. They purchased one steel knife having red colour for the sum of Rs.30/-, he cannot tell the number of the vehicle which he brought. After 1½ month, after the said purchase, the police brought accused No.1 to his shop and he identified him and informed the police that the said person purchased the knife from his shop. The police informed him that after purchasing the knife, he committed one murder. He identified the knife before the Court and it is marked as per M.O.13. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 has deposed that he is not having permission to sell hardware articles and also the weapons. He will be arrested for the sale of any of the items. But, in this case, he does not know whether he will be arrested for the sale of knife to accused No.1. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 has deposed that he is not having permission to sell hardware articles and also the weapons. He will be arrested for the sale of any of the items. But, in this case, he does not know whether he will be arrested for the sale of knife to accused No.1. He does not know whether any other persons have seen the accused person coming to his shop and purchasing the knife. He does not know from which place the police brought accused No.1 to his shop. He cannot say the knife which he had sold is of which company. When the police brought accused No.1 to his shop, they shown the knife also which accused No.1 purchased. He does not know, at that time, whether he noticed any blood stains on the said knife. He admitted the suggestion as true that as he had accepted the pledge of the gold ornaments, the police involved and registered the case against him and they have recovered such items from him. He denied the suggestion that accused No.1 had not come to his shop nor purchased the knife. He admitted that generally, for the sale of any items, he maintains bills/receipts. But so far as in this case, he has deposed that he does not have and even he has not produced any documents to show that he had sold M.O.13 to accused No.1. Apart from that, there was no blood stains on the knife which is confirmed by the FSL also. The contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement about he purchasing the knife and using the same in committing the said offence. But evidence of PW6 is not worth believable. Because it will not give confidence in the mind of the Court. Even with regard to recoveries are concerned, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not placed acceptable material before the Court. 28. Perusing the prosecution material, both oral and documentary, and looking to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Fast Track Court Judge, it goes to show that all these material aspects were extensively considered by the learned judge and he has rightly come to the conclusion in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted both accused persons from the charges. After re-appreciating the entered material, we are of the opinion that we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Court below nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the Court below in coming to the conclusion. There are no valid and justifiable grounds to interfere with the said judgment. No merit in the appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed. 29. We place on record, the valuable assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae Sri N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah, Advocate. Registry is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah as honorarium.