I.A. Ansari, J.

Seven accused persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Buxar, for offences alleged under Sections 302/34, 304(b)/34 , 201/34 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the accused-respondents were acquitted of all charges by the judgment and order, dated 02.03.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2011+ 90 of 2012, arising out of Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008. This appeal, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is brought by the informant, in Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR’), against the acquittal of the said accused-respondents , namely, Sumudri Devi, Chandrama Prasad, Mahavir Sah, Krishna Devi, Rinku Devi, Birendra Sah and Janak Sah.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the First Information Report, may, in brief, be described as under:-

(i) Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008 came to be registered, under Sections 304(b), 120(b), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a complaint filed on 14.03.2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the second complaint’), wherein the complainant, namely, Bhagmani Devi, alleged that her daughter, namely, Priyanka Devi, had filed a complaint petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first complaint’), under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which led to registration of Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2006. Later on, a compromise petition was filed, in the first complaint case, on 28.07.2006, and the complainant of the first complaint, Priyanka Devi, was taken to her matrimonial house by the accused persons on 04.12.2006. Priyanka Devi was presented before the Court, on 14.12.2006, by the accused persons and, thereafter, again, she was taken by the accused persons to her matrimonial house.

(ii) It is alleged that when the complainant of the second complaint, namely, Bhagmani Devi, went, on 28.06.2006, and, again, on 13.12.2006, along with her husband and her son, to the matrimonial house of Priyanka Devi to meet her daughter, the accused persons did not allow them to meet Priyanka Devi. Thereafter, Bhagmani Devi, along with her family members, went to the police station and they, accompanied by one Inspector, went to the matrimonial house of Priyanka Devi, but none of the accused persons were found there.

(iii) Bhagmani Devi, believing that her daughter had been killed by the accused persons, gave information to the Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, and filed a Complaint, on 14.03.2007, which gave rise to Navanagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008, registered under Sections 304(b), 120(b), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) Upon investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Sections 304(b), 120(b), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons aforementioned and accordingly cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

3. the accused respondents under Sections The learned Trial Court framed charges against 304(b)/34, 120(b), 201/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and explained the charges so framed to accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty. The trial, accordingly, commenced. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses. The accused, in their examinations under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code, denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them and that Priyanka Devi has been married to some other person by her parents and they have been implicated in this case due to previous enmity.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the judgment under appeal, has submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and, therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with. The grievance of the present appellant is that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused-respondents in a hyper technic