Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 118 of 2018

With

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 117 of 2018

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 118 of 2018

With

I.A No. 280 of 2019

&

I.A No.3919 of 2018

--------

Sudha Pathak

…

…

Appellant

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Priyabhanshu Ranjan

…

Respondents

With

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 117 of 2018

With

I.A No. 4254 of 2016

&

I.A No. 4285 of 2018

The State of Jharkhand

…

…

Appellant

-Versus-

Priyabhanshu Ranjan

…

Respondent

--------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. DWIVEDI

--------

For the Appellant

:

M/s. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate

Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate

For the Respondent No. 2:

M/s. Shree Krishna Murari,

Rohit, Advocates

For the State

:

M/s. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

--------

By Court: -

As both these acquittal appeals arise out of the same impugned

Judgement of acquittal, they have been heard together and are being

disposed of by this common Judgement.

2.

Heard learned counsels for the appellants in both these appeals

and the learned counsel for the accused respondent.

3.

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of

acquittal dated 29^th June 2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Koderma, in S.T No. 146 of 2012, whereby the sole accused, who

was facing the trial for the offence under Sections 306 / 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, has been acquitted by the Trial Court below, stating that the

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 118 of 2018

With

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 117 of 2018

- 2 -

prosecution has completely failed in establishing the charge against the said

accused.

4.

Aggrieved thereby one of these appeals have been filed by the

State and the other is filed by the victim, being the mother of the deceased,

but at the same time she was also a suspected accused in the case. As both

these appeals were barred by limitation by 1169 days, for condonation of

this delay I.A. No. 4254 of 2016 and I.A. No. 280 of 2019 have been filed,

and I.A. No. 4285 of 2018 and I.A. No. 3919 of 2018 have been filed

seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgement of acquittal.

5. This occurrence had attracted the attention of the Media and was

a very highlighted case of its time, as both the accused and the deceased

were attached with Media. The deceased was working with Business

Standard Magazine, whereas the respondent accused, at the relevant time,

was working in Press Trust of India. Admittedly, there was an affair

between the deceased and the respondent accused from their student days,

when they were students in mass communication, and the affair continued

till they were engaged in their respective jobs. It has come in the evidence

that they were staying together at Delhi in a rented house, but there is

denial of the fact from the accused respondent that there was any physical

relationship between them. The occurrence took place on 29.4.2010, when

the deceased girl had come to her parents' place at Telaiya, where she was

found hanging in her house by her mother. Admittedly, at that time, the

respondent accused was not at Telaiya, rather he was at Delhi. Initially, one

U.D. Case No. 6 of 2010 was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of

Dharmendra Pathak, the father of the deceased