JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

1. The State of Bihar has preferred the present Government Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 11/12/2014, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-Ist, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial Nos. 435 of 2012 / 50 of 2012, arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No. 229 of 2012.

2. At the trial, six (6) persons, including the sole opposite party, were put on trial on the charge of commission of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120B, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 67/67A and 84B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act). By the impugned judgment and order, dated 11/12/2014, learned trial Court has recorded conviction of Birendra Sah and Puja Kumari of the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 120B of the IPC. So far as other accused persons are concerned, including the sole opposite party, they have been acquitted of the charge by giving them benefit of doubt.

3. This is the background in which, the present Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, whereby, the learned court below has recorded acquittal of the opposite party.

4. The appeal is barred by limitation. Interlocutory Application No. 327 of 2016 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

5. On perusal of the said interlocutory application, seeking condonation of delay, I am of the view that the appellant-the State of Bihar has been able to make out a case that there existed sufficient reason facts of which the appeal could not be filed within time. The delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

6. Interlocutory Application No. 326 of 2016 is, accordingly, allowed.

7. The brother of the deceased is the informant, who in his Fardbeyan, which is the basis for registration of the First Information Report, has narrated that the deceased, the sole opposite party and another girl (L) used to go to a computer training institute for learning computer, where the accused, namely, Birendra Sah, also would to come. It has been alleged that said accused, Birendra Sah, had illicit relationship with the opposite party and the said 'L'. The informant's sister also became friendly with the said two girls. It is alleged that the accused, Birendra Sah, with the help of the other two girls, took obscene photographs and recorded video films of the deceased, where after he started black-mailing the deceased. It has also been alleged that the said accused, Birendra Sah, was pressurizing the deceased and her family members to marry him and, at some point of time, he had kidnapped the informant and had demanded ransom of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was alleged in the Fardbeyan that said accused, Birendra Sah, threatened and tortured the deceased so much in order to compel her to marry, which drove her to commit suicide by hanging herself with the help of her Dupatta, after she had gone to sleep at the night. She was found hanging from a fan in her room with her Dupatta.

8. On the basis of said Fardbeyan, Dumra P.S. Case No. 229 of 2012 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120B, 354 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 67/67A and 84B of the I.T. Act. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet, where after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was finally transferred to the Court of learned Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-Ist, Sitamarhi, for trial. Charge came to be framed, thereafter, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 120B, 354 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 67/67A and 84B of the I.T. Act.

9. At the trial, altogether fourteen (14) witnesses were examined including P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, P.W.3, the father of the deceased, and P.W.4, the informant hims

Click Here to Read the rest of this document