In criminal cases, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence must conclusively exclude any hypothesis of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Bintu Yadav @ Bindu Yadav against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.03.2024 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 27 of 2021 arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad, (‘trial court’) acquitted the FIR named accused Krishan Murari (‘respondent No. 2’) and Shlok Yadav (‘respondent No. 3’) of the offences for which the respondents were charged.

2. Heard Mr. Paras Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Prosecution story :-

3. The substance of the prosecution story is as follows :-

As per the informant, namely, Bindu Yadav, the marriage of his daughter, namely, Priti Kumari was solemnized with Krishan Murari (respondent No. 2) in the year 2019 and at the time of marriage, he gifted a motorcycle, a gold chain, furniture, etc. The informant alleged that the behaviour of his daughter’s in-laws with his daughter remained well only for one month but after that the respondent No. 2, his parents and his brother, namely, Kishor Kumar started demanding freeze, cooler and cash amount from his daughter, which could not be fulfilled by his daughter on account of her father’s financial difficulties. In the meantime, his daughter was ousted by her in-laws after snatching the ornaments from her. It has been further alleged that on 13.01.2020, the respondent No. 2, son-in-law of the informant, came to the informant’s house and stayed there with the victim after taking meal and both slept in the same room but after midnight at 3:00 A.M., the respondent No. 2 came and told him that his daughter was not there and went missing. Thereafter, a search for the victim was started in the nearby places but they did not find any clue. The informant further alleged that during the course of search, the respondent No. 2 came at Mukhdumpur with his son, namely, Vineet Kumar, aged about 9 years at that time, and on the way, the respondent informed the informant’s second daughter, namely, Kanchan Kumari about the incident of missing of the victim and he suggested the informant’s daughter, Kanchan Kumari, to search the victim near Makhdumpur railway station. The informant further alleged that in the morning at about 6:00 A.M., the respondent No. 2 also reached at Makhdumpur railway station and took his daughter Kanchan Kumari and his son Vineet Kumar on a motorcycle towards the railway line and showed the informant’s daughter, the dead body of the victim lying in the bushes. Then the victim’s dead body was seen by the informant’s second daughter and several stab injuries were found on the body. The informant further alleged in his FIR that he has full belief that his daughter was murdered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the help of their family members in furtherance of their conspiracy and after killing, they disposed of the dead body near the railway line in the bushes.

4. The informant/appellant filed a written application (Ext.-P-2) describing the aforesaid prosecution story, upon that basis, the formal FIR bearing Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2020 was registered under sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and others.

5. After completion of the investigation, the police chargesheeted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under s