Patna High Court
Bipin Bihari vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1461 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2022 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Bipin Bihari S/o Late Yogendra Pathak R/o vill and Post - Lagunia
Raghukanth, P.S. - Muffasil, Ward No. 46, Samastipur, Bihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashish Kumar Jha S/o Late Amar Shankar Jha R/o vill - Nathudwar, P.s. -
Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
3. Abhishek Kumar Jha S/o Late Amar Shankar Jha R/o vill - Nathudwar, P.s. -
Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
4. Pushp Gandha Devi W/o Late Amar Shankar Jha R/o vill - Nathudwar, P.s. -
Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
5. Kanchan Kumari D/o Late Amar Shankar Jha R/o vill - Nathudwar, P.s. -
Khanpur, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Shahi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
2/19
the 'learned trial court') in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2024 arising
out of Khanpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2022. By the impugned
judgment, the respondent nos. 2 and 5 have been acquitted of the
charges punishable under Sections 498A, 304B/34, 201, 364/34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the informant/appellant (PW-1). In his written
application, he has stated that marriage of his daughter was
solemnised with Ashish Kumar Jha (respondent no.2) on 11th
December, 2019. At the time of marriage, the informant had gifted
cash, ornaments, clothes and many other items to his in-law. Four
days after the marriage, informant's daughter went to her sasural
where her in-laws started demanding bullet motorcycle and on
protest they started torturing her. This was informed to the
informant by her daughter on which the informant and his son
used to go there but due to shortage of fund, he was not able to
fulfill the demand of bullet motorcycle. Her daughter spent three
months in her in-laws house anyhow and she used to ask the
informant to take her from in-laws house otherwise they can kill
her. The informant brought his daughter to his house for some days
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
3/19
thereafter her daughter again went to her in-laws house but their
behaviour remained the same. Due to cruel behaviour of her in-
laws, the informant brought her daughter to his house on 1 st July,
2022 and her daughter disclosed her that her in-laws many times
attempted to kill her but she was saved by the neighbours on which
the informant called his son-in-law Ashish Kumar Jha who came
to his house on 03.07.2022 where he accepted his mistake and
assured that no untoward occurrence would occur in future with
his daughter and also assured to take informant's daughter to his
house after persuading his mother and brother. Then the informant
asked his son-in-law to keep his daughter in the room provided in
his office on which his son-in-law went from there. On
05.07.2022
, in conspiracy with his mother, brother and sister
informant’s son-in-law came to his house on bullet motorcycle and
asked his daughter to come with him which was informed to the
informant then he arrived at his house and after much persuasion
informant allowed his son-in-law to take his daughter to his house.
At the time of leaving the house, informant’s daughter was wearing
some ornaments and was having a mobile of SIM No.
7070605432. After one hour, informant’s wife made a call on her
daughter’s mobile on which she replied that she was brought to the
residence at Madhuri Chowk and from there she was being asked
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
4/19
to go to Korbaddha whereafter mobile of his daughter became
switched off. Thereafter, the informant along with his son went to
his son-in-laws quarter at Madhuri Chowk where he was informed
that he is not living in the room for last one month and thereafter
he came to know that his son-in-law and daughter were seen at
Angar Ghat Chowk going towards Nathudwar on bullet
motorcycle. The informant and his son went there but no one was
there in the house, the informant made a call to his son-in-law but
he did not reply satisfactorily and since then informant was
searching his daughter but no trace of his daughter could be found
and now his son-in-law is also not responding to his phone calls.
The informant inquired from neighbours at Nathudwar where he
came to know that in the night of 05.07.2022, his daughter was
killed by her in-laws and disappeared the dead body with an
intention to conceal the evidence. The informant raised suspicion
that due to non-fulfilling the demand of bullet motorcycle, his
daughter was killed by his son-in-law and in-laws under a
conspiracy and disappeared the dead body.
4. On the basis of this written application, FIR being
Khanpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2022 dated 11.07.2022 was
registered under Sections 304(B), 201, 498(A)/34 IPC and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused persons, namely,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
5/19
(1) Pushpgandha Devi, (2) Kanchan Kumari, (3) Ashish Kumar
and (4) Abhishek Kumar. After investigation, police submitted
chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 218 of 2023 dated
26.07.2023 under Sections 498(A), 364/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against (1) Ashish Kumar (husband),
(2) Abhishek Kumar (brother-in-law), (3) Kanchan Kumari (sister-
in-law) and (4) Pushpgandha Devi (mother-in-law).
5. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur
vide order dated 08.08.2023 took cognizance of the offences
punishable under above-mentioned Sections against Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5. Upon finding that the offences are triable in the court
of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated
30.01.2024 committed the records to the court of Sessions.
6. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to which they denied and claimed to be
tried, accordingly, vide order dated 28.03.2024, charges were
framed under Sections 498(A), 304(B)/34, 201, 364/34 IPC and
Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether seven witnesses and exhibited several documentary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
6/19
evidences. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the
exhibits are given hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
Prosecution Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
PW-1 Vipin Bihari Informant
PW-2 Hari Mohan Chaudhary Teacher in the School
PW-3 Sumant Pathak Co-sharer of the
informant
PW-4 Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary Brother-in-law of the
informant
PW-5 Pinki Devi Mother of the Victim
PW-6 Arvind Kumar Singh Second I.O.
PW-7 Ramesh Kumar Sharma First I.O.
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by
'1' Typed written Application PW-1
'X' Bank Statement PW-1
'2' writing of pagination and PW-7
signature
'3' Signature of Station House PW-7
Officer on the first page of
the formal FIR
'3/1' Signature of Station House PW-7
Officer on the second page of
the formal FIR
'3/2' Signature of Station House PW-7
Officer on the third page of
the formal FIR
8. Thereafter, the statements of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5
were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short ‘CrPC‘). In their 313 Statements, they denied
the allegations and pleaded innocence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
7/19
9. The defence has brought two witnesses and exhibited
two documentary evidences which are being produced hereunder
in tabular form.
List of Defence Witnesses
Defence Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
DW-1 Vinit Kumar Singh Employee at Senior
Section Engineer,
Works South, Railway,
Samastipur
DW-2 Sadhan Kumar Dey Chaukidar of Senior
Section Engineer,
Works South, Railway,
Samastipur
List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by
'A' Attendance Register DW-1
'B' Note and Signature on DW-1
Attendance Register
Findings of the learned trial court
10. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the depositions
of the informant (PW-1), Harimohan Choudhary (PW-2), Sumant
Pathak (PW-3) the pattidar of the informant, brother-in-law of the
informant (PW-4), wife of the informant (PW-5), the I.O (PW-6).
and the other I.O. (PW-7) found that identification of the persons
who disclosed the informant that informant’s daughter Pratima was
killed by the in-laws has not been brought on record during
evidence and besides that the learned trial court found that the I.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
8/19
deposed that he did not find any evidence regarding death. The
I.O. stated that he deputed the spy but no evidence could be
gathered. Learned trial court further found that as per the evidence
that informant and his wife came to know about the occurrence of
06.07.2022 thereafter he lodged the FIR on 11.07.2022 and no
explanation has been given to the I.O. regarding delayed
information to the police.
11. Learned trial court found from the evidence of the
I.O. that the informant did not get any CDR of the call details to
establish the claim of PW-5, the wife of the informant that he had
talked to his daughter after leaving her house.
12. Learned trial court found that informant in his
evidence claimed that he went in search of his daughter with his
son but informant’s son has not been made a chargesheet witness
in this case. Learned trial court found from the evidence of PW-7
(I.O.) that no quarter was found in the office at Madhuri Chowk.
Referring to the evidence of PW-2 the learned trial court found
that as per PW-2 he had seen the daughter of the informant at 5:30
PM going towards Nathudwar and after 5-7 minutes PW-1
informant had also gone towards Nathudwar which was situated at
a distance of 8-10 kilometer and it takes 10-15 minutes in reaching
there. Learned trial court found that within 10 minutes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
9/19
informant also reached Nathudwar and in the meantime, at 6 PM
in the month of July the accused persons fled away after killing the
informant’s daughter. Learned trial court opined that in absence of
evidence regarding killing if presumption can be made then
evidence under Section 108 of BSA is required. Accordingly,
presumption cannot be made.
13. Learned trial court found that the informant’s son-in-
law had a bullet in his possession therefore demand of bullet by
the in-laws was found doubtful. Learned trial court did not find
any material in the evidences to suggest that the informant’s
daughter was killed and his dead body was concealed.
14. Learned trial court opined that no evidence is
available on the record regarding death of the informant’s daughter
and also not found any material to suggest screening of evidence.
No witness has come to say that who had disclosed about the
killing of the informant’s daughter and the witnesses who had
disclosed about it are the family members of the informant’s
daughter but they are not the eyewitness. They have deposed on
the basis of hearsay.
15. Learned trial court found that the accused Ashish
Kumar Jha is the husband of the informant’s daughter and he had
taken her with himself with the consent of her parents, therefore,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
10/19
the prosecution has failed to bring this fact in the evidences that it
is a case of consent and dissent. Accordingly, the learned trial
court did not find it a case of kidnapping.
16. Regarding demand of dowry, the learned trial court
found that except the family members no witness has stated that
there was any dispute between the informant’s daughter and her in-
laws and no written or oral complaint was ever made. Learned trial
court found from the evidences that the informant’s daughter used
to perform her religious work at her in-laws house. The learned
trial court found that the informant alleged regarding demand of a
bullet motorcycle but the word ‘dowry’ has not been used by the
informant.
17. Accordingly, learned trial court after examining the
evidences available on the record found that the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges against the accused persons facing trial
(respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein) and passed the impugned judgment.
Submissions on behalf of the informant-appellant
18. Learned counsel for the informant-appellant has
assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the judgment
suffers from unusual and wrong appreciation of evidences. It is
submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that
despite having minor contradictions between the testimonies of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
11/19
witnesses, the witnesses were consistent on one fact that there was
payment of dowry to the respondents which was well reflected by
the bank statement which was marked as Exhibit ‘X’.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
was a demand of dowry and this fact has been corroborated from
the bank statements produced by the informant in the court
showing that payments were made in the accounts of the
respondent nos. 2 to 5. The trial court ought to have held that the
deceased was accompanied by respondent no. 2 and based on the
last seen theory itself and the statements of the witnesses
corroborating the same, the respondent no. 2 was liable to be
convicted.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned trial court has wrongly allowed the plea of alibi of
respondent no. 2 and has misdirected itself in relying upon the
testimonies of the defence witnesses.
Submissions on behalf of the State
21. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State would submit that the learned trial court
has rightly appreciated the entire evidences available on the
record. The trial court has found that the respondent no. 2, Ashish
Kumar Jha, had got Bullet and Scooty from before, no witness has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
12/19
controverted this. The respondent no. 2 had come to pick up his
wife, Pratima Kumari, by Bullet. The informant side had never
made any allegation either in oral or writing that there was demand
of dowry, in these circumstances, the prosecution had failed to
establish the charges under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
22. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
would further submit that the learned trial court has recorded a
correct finding that the charge under Section 364 IPC would not be
made out. The respondent no. 2 is the husband of the deceased and
it is the case of the prosecution witnesses that the respondent no. 2
had taken away the victim Pratima Kumari with the consent of her
parents. The trial court has, therefore, rightly concluded that
respondent no. 2 is the natural protector of the victim against
whom the allegation of abduction is not proved.
23. As regards charge under Section 498A, 304B/34 and
201 IPC, it is submitted that the learned trial court has duly
appreciated the evidences brought on the record. The informant
and the other witnesses who claimed that on 5 th July, 2022 the
neighbours of the sasural of the victim had informed that the
victim had been killed and her dead body has been made to
disappear has not been duly proved. Nobody has disclosed the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
13/19
name of those persons who told this and they have not been
produced by the prosecution. The I.O. himself says that with
regard to the death of the deceased, no evidence could be found.
On these grounds, the appeal has been contested.
Consideration
24. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also on
perusal of the trial court’s records, once again this Court finds that
the marriage between the victim and respondent no.2 was
solemnized on 11th December 2019 as per Hindu rites and customs.
The respondent no. 2 was posted as Railway Chowkidar in the
Office of the Senior Assistant Engineer at Madhuri Chowk,
Samastipur. It is the case of the informant that four days after the
marriage, his daughter had come back from sasural. It is alleged
that a demand for Bullet motorcycle was made immediately after
marriage which was being protested by the victim whereupon she
was being tortured. The informant has stated that his daughter used
to inform this over telephone and whenever he along with his son
visited to her house. The informant was unable to provide a Bullet
motorcycle due to financial constraints. His daughter/victim stayed
in sasural for about three months only and thereafter on many
occasions the informant came and took her to his house, but
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
14/19
according to the informant, the behaviour of the sasural people did
not change. When the sasural people continued with the torture,
ultimately, he brought his daughter to his house on 1st April 2022.
This Court finds that since 11th December 2019 till 1st July 2022,
neither any oral nor any written complaint was made before police
or to any person in the society against the conduct of respondent
nos. 2 to 5. The trial court finding on this point is correct.
25. This Court further finds that on 3rd July 2022, the
respondent no. 2 is said to have come to the house of the informant
where he was scolded by the informant and on this, he accepted
the mistake of his family members and promised that in future
such occurrence will not take place. The informant claimed that on
5th July 2022, at about 11 AM his son-in-law/respondent no.2 came
with a bullet motorcycle and in absence of the informant, he asked
the victim to come with him. It is stated that on the insistence by
the respondent no. 2, mother of the victim informed the informant
over phone, the informant came from the school taking permission
for 10 minutes from the school Headmaster. The informant admits
that he had permitted his daughter/victim to go with his son-in-
law. The informant claims that she had gone with the respondent
no. 2 on his motorcycle. This Court, therefore, finds that in the
facts of the present case where the respondent no. 2 is the husband
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
15/19
of the deceased and the deceased had gone from her maike with
the consent of her parents, the ingredients of the offences under
Section 364 IPC is not made out. The learned trial court has,
therefore, not committed any wrong in taking this view.
26. This Court further finds that the informant along
with his son claims to have come to the quarter of his son-in-law at
Madhuri Chowk but he came to know that his son-in-law was not
residing in the said room for last one month. They were going
towards Nathudwar, on way, he met Hari Mohan Choudhary (PW-
2) who told that he had seen the son-in-law and daughter of the
informant at about 5:30 PM at Angarghat Chowk going on a bullet
motorcycle towards Nathudwar. Some more persons also told the
informant to have seen his son-in-law going towards Nathudwar.
The informant claimed to have made a phone call to his son-in-law
but could not get a satisfactory response. From these statements of
the informant (PW-1), it is crystal clear that on the same day i.e. on
05.07.2022 he had gone in search of his daughter/victim, he had
also made phone call to his son-in-law, it is not the case of the
informant that his son-in-law did not pick up the call. The
informant says that his son-in-law could not give a satisfactory
reply. If it is so, it is difficult to believe as to why the informant did
not lodge any report of killing of his daughter in the police station.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
16/19
The informant went to the police station on 11.07.2022 i.e. after 6
days of the occurrence. This conduct of the informant cannot be
said to be natural and the delay of 6 days in lodging of the FIR
despite knowledge that his daughter has been killed would create
huge doubt on the prosecution story.
27. The learned trial court has analysed the prosecution
evidence and found that the second I.O. (PW-6) has stated that he
had taken charge of the investigation on 13.07.2023. PW-6 had
taken statement of the accused and recorded the same in paragraph
‘135’ of the case diary. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
he had not taken statement of any witness, he had not inspected the
place of occurrence, he had interrogated the respondent no. 2 but
his statement was not recorded. He could not make a verification
as to whether the victim was still alive or not. He had submitted
charge-sheet in order to ensure that the accused does not get
benefit of section 167 CrPC. The first I.O. (PW-7) had inspected
the place of occurrence which is the sasural of the deceased at
Nathudwar which falls under Khanpur police station. He had
recorded the statement of Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, Sumant
Pathak, Hari Mohan Choudhary and Pinki Devi. PW-7 had also
visited the office of the Senior Section Engineer, East Central
Railway, Samastipur where the accused was working. He could
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
17/19
not find any trace of the dead body. PW-7 has stated that in course
of inspection of the place of occurrence, he had not found any
mark of violence, no witness in the vicinity of the place of
occurrence affirmed that the daughter of the informant/victim has
been murdered in the night of 05.07.2022 and that the dead body
of the victim has been made to disappear, therefore, in the
supervision, Section 304B IPC was removed. This witness has
stated that there is no CCTV camera at Angarghat and he had no
talk with the officer-in-charge of the police station regarding the
delay in lodging of the FIR. Hari Mohan Choudhary (PW-2) had
not stated before PW-7 in his statement that in the night Bipin
Bihari Choudhary and his brother-in-law Ranjit Choudhary had
come to his house and had called him from the road and said that
nobody was found and there was a lock at the door of the house.
This witness had also not stated that on 06.07.2022, he had gone in
search of the victim but no one had informed that in the night, the
victim has been killed and the dead body has been made to
disappear. PW-2 had not stated before the I.O. (PW-7) that the
victim used to come to his school and say that her sasural people
were doing marpit with her and they were demanding a bullet.
PW-7 has also stated that Pinki Devi (PW-5) had not stated in her
statement that at 3:54 PM, she had made a call to her daughter who
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
18/19
told her that she was afraid and was going from Madhuri Chowk to
Korbaddha. She had also not said that the son-in-law talked for
two minutes and then cut the call. This witness had also not said
that on 1st July, the daughter had come to her house. The I.O. had
not taken out the CDR of the mobile of the victim and her mother.
This Court finds that Vineet Kumar Singh (DW-1) is the
Senior Section Engineer, Works South, Samastipur who has
deposed in favour of the respondent no.2. He is said to have come
with the original register and he proved that at item no.1 of the
attendance register name of Ashish Kumar Jha is mentioned and
on 05.07.2022 Ashish Kumar Jha was on duty from 6:00 AM to
6:00 PM. He has deposed that on the said day, Ashish Kumar Jha
was on duty.
28. In ultimate analysis of the entire evidences available
on the record, the learned trial court has taken a view that the
charges levelled against respondent nos. 2 to 5 have not been duly
proved.
29. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal
wherein it is settled principle that the Appellate Court should not
interfere with any judgment of acquittal unless the Court comes to
an irresistible conclusion that the findings of the learned trial court
are perverse and there cannot be any other conclusion but to held
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1461 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
19/19
that the accused are guilty of committing the offence as alleged. In
the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned
trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the
evidences on the record. No interference is called for.
30. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.04.2026 Transmission Date 20.04.2026