Acquittal sustained absent proof of factum of death, dowry demand, and abduction through credible evidence.

The appellant (informant) preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2024 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, regarding charges under Sections 498A, 304B/34, 201, 364/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The appellant’s daughter married respondent no. 2 in December 2019

It was alleged that the in-laws demanded a "Bullet" motorcycle and tortured the victim, leading the appellant to bring her back to his house in July 2022

On 05.07.2022, respondent no. 2 (husband) arrived on a motorcycle and took the victim with him after the appellant gave consent

Subsequently, the victim’s phone became unreachable. The informant alleged he heard from unnamed neighbors that his daughter was murdered and her body was disposed of

An FIR was lodged on 11.07.2022 after a six-day delay

The police submitted a chargesheet, but the trial court acquitted all respondents

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of kidnapping (Section 364 IPC) given that the victim left her paternal home with her husband with the parents' consent

2. Whether the prosecution established the factum of death and the subsequent charge of dowry death (Section 304B IPC) and disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) in the absence of a corpus delicti or corroborative evidence

3. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the defense's plea of alibi significantly undermined the prosecution's case

The court applied the statutory requirements for Section 304B (Dowry Death) and Section 498A (Cruelty) of the IPC, alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

It referred to Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) regarding the presumption of death

The court also adhered to the settled appellate principle that a judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the findings are perverse or the conclusion of guilt is irresistible

The court found the kidnapping charge (Section 364 IPC) unsustainable because the victim, a married woman, left with her husband (the natural protector) with her parents' explicit permission

Regarding the murder and dowry death charges, the court noted that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) found no evidence of death, marks of violence at the site, or any witnesses to corroborate the hearsay claim that the victim was killed

The court highlighted a critical six-day delay in filing the FIR, which the informant failed to explain despite claiming immediate knowledge of the alleged crime

Furthermore, the defense successfully established a plea of alibi for respondent no. 2, providing attendance registers from his employment at the Railways showing he was on duty during the alleged occurrence

The demand for a "Bullet" motorcycle was deemed doubtful as the respondent already owned one

The court concluded that the prosecution's witnesses were primarily family members whose testimonies were based on hearsay and lacked consistency

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal

The court found no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence that would warrant interference