JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Sri Banke Bihari Rai, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 77 of 2000. 2. Appellants were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Each of them was further convicted under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with the direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 3. Criminal law was set in motion on the basis of the typed written report presented by the informant P.W.-6 Ramdeo Choudhary before the Marafari police, wherein the informant narrated that he had married his daughter Sangita Devi @ Munni with one Vijay Kumar Choudhary in the month of May, 1996 and after her marriage, Sangita Devi went to her matrimonial home at B.S.L. Jhopri Colony, Bokaro as her father-in-law was employed at the H.S.C.L., Bokaro, who used to live there with the members of his family. She stayed there for some time and thereafter the informant went there and took her back to his home with the consent of her in-laws. In the month of May, 1997, her husband Vijay Kumar Choudhary came and took her away to her matrimonial home to Bokaro where she begun to live with the husband and in-laws. But after some time, the informant alleged that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law started demanding dowry from her to be brought from her parental home and in this connection, she was subjected to torture, to which his daughter communicated him about her miseries by letter. The informant then went to her in-laws house and enquired about the demand, but her father-in-law and mother-in-law expressed that they had never tortured her, yet, his daughter Sangita Devi explained in detail, whereupon the informant took her away once again to his home village where she stayed for a few months. In the month of December, 1997, his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Choudhary came and requested for the execution of her Bidai, which was allowed by extending request to him that henceforth they would not torture her to which Vijay Kumar Choudhary assured that she would be allowed to remain there at her matrimonial home with dignity and honour. In the month of December, 1997, his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Choudhary came and requested for the execution of her Bidai, which was allowed by extending request to him that henceforth they would not torture her to which Vijay Kumar Choudhary assured that she would be allowed to remain there at her matrimonial home with dignity and honour. By giving such assurance, his son-in-law took away his wife Sangita Devi to Bokaro Steel City where she lived without any complain till February, 1998. But thereafter, the informant alleged, that his daughter was found mussing from her matrimonial home and on 26.3.1998, when he visited her matrimonial home at Bokaro, it was explained by her father-in-law that his son Vijay Kumar Choudhary had taken away his wife Sangita Devi to Karnataka two months ago for his livelihood. The informant suspected and he had reason to believe that his daughter Sangita Devi was kidnapped by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law to some unknown place in prosecution of their criminal conspiracy and her dead body was concealed after committing her murder. Police registered Marafari P.S. Case No. 44 of 1998 on 14.4.1998 against all the four named accused persons. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against all the four accused under Sections 498A/364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the accused Hemanti Kumari, who was a minor girl at the relevant time of alleged occurrence, was separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Court. Charges were framed against the accused Appellants Kashi Nath Choudhary, Mangni @ Mangri Devi and Vijay Kumar Choudhary under Sections 498A/34, 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and separate charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed only against Kashi Nath Choudhary and Mangni @ Mangri Devi. Defence of the accused was of denial of allegations and their false implication merely on suspicion due to enmity and personal grudge. 4. During trial, eight witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of them P.W. 3 Chhabila Choudhary was unfavourable to the prosecution, as such, he was declared hostile. P.W.-8 Shankar Thakur, an Advocate's Clerk, was the formal witness who proved the seizure list Ext. 2 in the pen and signature of Sub Inspector Sri Dinanath Prasad, posted at Marafari police station at the relevant time. P.W.-8 Shankar Thakur, an Advocate's Clerk, was the formal witness who proved the seizure list Ext. 2 in the pen and signature of Sub Inspector Sri Dinanath Prasad, posted at Marafari police station at the relevant time. He further proved the endorsement made on the written report of the informant in the pen and signature of the then officer-in-charge of Marafari police station Sri Ashok Kumar which was marked Ext. 3. 5. P.W.-1 Radheshyam Prasad is also a formal witness, who proved his signature on the search list Ext. 1, which was prepared by the police on 3.4.1998. He further proved his signature on a seizure list, which was prepared by the police on 3.5.1998, of the small pieces of bones, pieces of gunny bags in decomposed condition as also the pieces of saree and bangles. His signature was marked Ext. 1/1. He testified that pieces of bones were recovered in his presence from dram and that the seizure list was prepared at the place of recovery itself. He could not say the number of small bones, which were recovered and further he could not say the colour and the size of pieces of the saree which were recovered. 6. P.W.-2 Dharmadeo Prasad testified by supporting the marriage of Sangita Devi with Vijay Kumar Choudhary in the year 1996 and after marriage she began to live in the house of Vijay Kumar Choudhary situated opposite his house in the Jhopri Colony. The witness corroborated that her in-law 3 and husband had been putting pressure for more dowry to be brought from her parental home and in this connection, they had been assaulting her, to which she had communicated to her parents through letter. He suspected that she might have been killed for dowry by her husband and other in-laws as Sangita Devi was found missing from her matrimonial home after some time and message was given that she accompanied her husband to Karnataka. On the written report of the informant P.W.-6 Ramdeo Choudhary, Marafari police asked the father of Vijay Kumar Choudhary, namely, Kashi Nath Choudhary to call for Sangita Devi from Karnataka within a week, but she could not be brought by him within the time frame. On the written report of the informant P.W.-6 Ramdeo Choudhary, Marafari police asked the father of Vijay Kumar Choudhary, namely, Kashi Nath Choudhary to call for Sangita Devi from Karnataka within a week, but she could not be brought by him within the time frame. Police in course of investigation of the case, recovered several pieces of small bones, besides two gunny bags, pieces of bangles and pieces of saree in his presence, to which a seizure list was prepared. He proved his signature on the seizure list Ext. 1/2. Sangita Devi could not be found out or recovered till his deposition. The witness admitted that he came across the informant Ramdeo Choudhary on 8.4.2000 and in course of interaction, the informant had suspected that his daughter was kidnapped and expressed apprehension that his daughter might have been killed. 7. P.W.-4 Jagannath Singh derived information regarding the missing of Sangita Devi from her father Ramdeo Choudhary and he had no personal knowledge about her missing/kidnapping alleged to be by her in-laws, but he admitted having suggested Ramdeo Choudhary to institute a case at the police station about the missing of his daughter. However, he admitted that in course of investigation, the police recovered some pieces of bones after digging out earth from near the fountain, situated in Jhopri Colony in his presence. Sangita Devi could not be found out or located. In course of cross-examination, the witness admitted that the house of the accused Kashi Nath Choudhary was searched in his presence, but nothing much less any incriminating article could be recovered from his house. He admitted that he was interrogated by the police at the time of search of the house of Kashi Nath Choudhary. 8. P.W.-5 Ramni Devi was the mother of Sangita Devi. She corroborated the evidence what her husband had deposed and she testified that her daughter had sent a letter narrating that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law had been perpetrating torture to her for dowry and that they had been assaulting her also. When her husband visited the matrimonial home of his daughter after receiving her letter, he did not find her there and came to learn there that her in-laws had kidnapped her. She could not be located and later on, she learnt that she was done to death for dowry by her in-laws and the dead body was concealed. When her husband visited the matrimonial home of his daughter after receiving her letter, he did not find her there and came to learn there that her in-laws had kidnapped her. She could not be located and later on, she learnt that she was done to death for dowry by her in-laws and the dead body was concealed. She admitted that she was illiterate and had not gone into the contents of the letter. She expressed her ignorance about the custody of the letter. 9. P.W.-6 Ramdeo Choudhary was the informant of this case and the father of the victim-girl Sangita Devi. He consistently testified that after her marriage with Vijay Kumar Choudhary in the month of May, 1996 Sangita Devi want to her sasural where she lived peacefully for two months. Thereafter he took her back to his home after executing Bidai. Her gawna was executed in the month of May, 1997 when she returned back to her matrimonial home, but there her husband and in-laws started teasing her for not bringing more dowry. He received the letter which was written by his daughter in the month of June, 1997 by which she communicated that she was being tortured by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Nanad for not bringing dowry. He went to the matrimonial home of his daughter on receipt of the letter and tried to pacify the matter. In the month of August, 1997, he again took back his daughter to his home, but in the month of December, 1997, his son-in-law came and took away his wife. During Holi in the year 1998, he came across his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Choudhary at Dehri on 25.3.1998, who apprised that he was returning from Delhi after two months and that Sangita Devi was there with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at Jhopri Colony, Bokaro. On 26.3.1998 he accompanied his son-in-law on their way to Bokaro but his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Choudhary escaped after dodging him at the Dehri station itself and intentionally did not accompany him to Bokaro. However, on 26.3.1998 he reached the matrimonial home of his daughter at Bokaro where he came across his Samdhi Kashi Nath Choudhary, who explained that his daughter had accompanied her husband to Karnataka for livelihood. However, on 26.3.1998 he reached the matrimonial home of his daughter at Bokaro where he came across his Samdhi Kashi Nath Choudhary, who explained that his daughter had accompanied her husband to Karnataka for livelihood. The witness then expressed anguish and retorted that he had been giving false information as his son-in-law to whom he came across had given altogether a different version which resulted into his hot altercation with Kashi Nath Choudhary. No correct information regarding Sangita Devi could be given by them to him. On 6.4.1998 he presented a written report at the Marafari Police Station. He proved his signature on the written report Ext. 1/3. In course of investigation, the police dug out certain pieces of bones, pieces of bangles and pieces of saree with two gunny bags which were found decomposed. He identified the pieces of saree and claimed that it belonged to his daughter Sangita. His daughter could not be recovered till his deposition. He identified the accused in the dock. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had delivered the letter of Sangita at the police stat ion which was sent by her in the month of June, 1997 narrating the torture and assault being inflicted on her for dowry. But he could not report the matter to the police. He did not rely upon the statement of his Samdhi when he stated that his daughter had accompanied her husband to Karnataka for livelihood. 10. P.W.-7 Vikrama Pandey has corroborated the statement of other witnesses on material fact and further testified that after institution of the case, police came and dug out two gunny bags with several small pieces of bones, fifty-one in number, besides five pieces of bangles and pieces of saree in his presence at some distance from the fountain at Jhopri Colony. He admitted having no interaction with Sangita Devi and he came to learn from Ramdeo Choudhary that his daughter was missing from her matrimonial home. He expressed about the nature of bones as to whether these belonged to animals or human being. 11. Prosecution proved the search list Ext 1, signature of Radheshyam Prasad on the seizure list Ext. 1/1, signature of Dinanath Prasad on the seizure list of bones etc. Ext. 1/2, signature of the informant Ramdeo Choudhary on his Fardbeyan Ext. 1/3, entire seizure list Ext. 11. Prosecution proved the search list Ext 1, signature of Radheshyam Prasad on the seizure list Ext. 1/1, signature of Dinanath Prasad on the seizure list of bones etc. Ext. 1/2, signature of the informant Ramdeo Choudhary on his Fardbeyan Ext. 1/3, entire seizure list Ext. 2 and the endorsement of the police officer on the written report Ext. 3. It is relevant to mention that neither the Investigating Officer was examined nor the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has been brought on the record with respect to examination of bones which were: dug out from the ditch as to whether it belonged to human being much less of a female. The prosecution even failed to produce any report in this regard. There was no connecting conclusive evidence that the pieces of saree that were dug out actually belonged to Sangita Devi except formal identification of the father and without corroboration by the mother in the test identification. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar submitted that the Appellants have been convicted by the trial Court merely on suspicion and without legal evidence on the record. There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence appearing against any of them for their conviction under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation of demand of dowry, for that a separate charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed could not be proved. The Investigating Officer of the case abstained from the witness box, which caused prejudice to the Appellants of being denied of opportunity to cross-examine him on the point of search list and seizure list and his objective finding when he visited the house of the Appellants. There is no explanation on the record as to why net the bones, which were dug out from the ditch, could be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish as to whether it belonged to human being or otherwise, as such, prosecution miserably failed to establish that the bones, which were recovered from the ditch, belonged to Sangita Devi. In the era of scientific investigation, prosecution could have compared the DNA of the informant-father with the DNA of the bones to establish as to whether or not it belonged to his daughter Sangita Devi. In the era of scientific investigation, prosecution could have compared the DNA of the informant-father with the DNA of the bones to establish as to whether or not it belonged to his daughter Sangita Devi. The informant P.W.-6 Ramdeo Choudhary in his testimony admitted that prior to presentation of written report on 15.4.1998 he had informed the police orally about the missing of his daughter and alleged kidnapping but no case was registered which could have been the basis for lodging the FIR therefore the subsequent written report of the informant is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which cannot be the basis for setting the law in motion Seizure list witnesses have simply proved the seizure of some bones, bangles and pieces of saree which were not conclusive in nature that these items belonged to Sangita Devi as the Jhopri Colony was consisting of hundreds, of dwellers, including the female members and recovery of bangles and saree would not conclusively suggest that it belonged to Sangita Devi, who was missing. 13. Mr. Shikarwar, the learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the informant P.W.-6 and other witnesses were consistent that there was demand of dowry and that Sangita Devi did not bring dowry, as such, she was assaulted and humiliated. But the prosecution miserably failed to point cut the nature of dowry allegedly demanded by the Appellants and only evasive allegation was made without any positive evidence on the record. Appellants were shocked on the missing of Sangita Devi and they have also tried to search out, but her body dead or alive could not be located. In the case of corpus delicti, the burden is heavy upon the prosecution to search out and give explanation about the body and the court is also required to be careful in considering the material evidence against the accused while convicting and awarding sentence. In this case, trial Court failed to consider that there was no evidence at all on the record to connect the Appellants for the charge under Sections 498A/34 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code the offence alleged could be proved against them beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts end the Appellants were convicted merely on suspicion without any legal evidence, therefore, the Appellants may be acquitted after giving them benefit of doubt. 14. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned A.P.P. Mr. Hatim, who opposed the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants, I find substance in the argument that the Appellants have been convicted without legal evidence on the record. Witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution have simply raised suspicion, including the father and mother of the victim that their daughter was kidnapped by her in-laws i.e. the Appellants herein and her dead body was concealed after committing her murder. The prosecution failed to produce circumstantial evidence on the record to establish such contention beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution did not care for conducting DNA test that the bones recovered from the ditch assuming that it belonged to Sangita Devi i.e. the daughter of the informant after comparing it with the blood sample of the father informant. Nothing; incriminating could be found when the house of the Appellants was searched and even if it was found that Sangita Devi was missing from her matrimonial home, the burden was heavy upon the prosecution to give a convincing explanation as to how and by whom she was kidnapped and where she was disposed of or done to death or kept confined. Moreover, abstinence of the Investigating Officer from the witness box in the trial Court has caused prejudiced to the defence of the Appellants as raised by the learned Amicus Curiae. It can safely be said that prosecution failed to prove the case except suspicion raised which cannot take the place of proof and in my view, a reasonable doubt is created as to the complicity of the Appellants in the alleged kidnapping of Sangita Devi for whatever may be the reasons either she may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. Therefore, after giving them benefit of doubt, the Appellants Kashi Nath Choudhary, Mangni @ Mangri Devi and Vijay Kumar Choudhary are acquitted from their conviction and order of sentence recorded by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 77 of 2000, arising out of Marafari P.S. Case No. 44 of 1998. 15. This appeal is accordingly allowed. 16. Therefore, after giving them benefit of doubt, the Appellants Kashi Nath Choudhary, Mangni @ Mangri Devi and Vijay Kumar Choudhary are acquitted from their conviction and order of sentence recorded by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 77 of 2000, arising out of Marafari P.S. Case No. 44 of 1998. 15. This appeal is accordingly allowed. 16. Appellants Kashi Nath Choudhary and Mangni @ Mangri Devi are on bail, as such, their bail bonds stand discharged. Appellant Vijay Kumar Choudhary is directed to be set at liberty at once, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.