State vs Mohd. Raees

Tashi Rabstan, J

By way of this condonation application, the appellant is seeking to condone 229 days delay in filing the above-titled Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 27.10.2017 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, whereby the respondent herein has been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302, 201 RPC in FIR No.48/2014. Along with the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has also filed SLA No.70/2018 seeking leave of the Court to file the appeal.

Before dealing with the application for condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to examine the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, to find out as to whether or not any interference is warranted therewith, so that injustice may not occasion merely because of lapse on the part of the appellant-State in filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

A perusal of the file reveals that in order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution had examined as many as 26 witnesses, out of the total cited 28 witnesses.

PW1 Mohd. Sharief - father of deceased, PW2 Safina Kouser - wife of deceased, PW3 Parvaiz Ahmed - an independent witness, PW6 Mohd. Iqbal - father-in-law of deceased, PW7 Mohd. Imran - an independent witness and PW9 Anjum Kouser - bhabhi of deceased were the material witnesses in the sense that all of them had categorically deposed that the deceased and the accused were good friends and both of them used to remain together. It has also come in their statements that there was no dispute between the deceased and the accused. Even father of the deceased, namely, Mohd. Sharief had specifically deposed that from the date of occurrence, i.e., 24.10.2013 to till recording of his statement on 04.02.2014, he did not make any statement against the accused to the police. It has also come on record, as deposed by many witnesses, that the deceased used to take alcohol. Although PW9 Anjum Kouser had deposed that the accused was suspicious about the deceased having illicit relations with the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of accused, however, she had also deposed that the deceased and accused were very good friends and had visiting terms, so much so their family members had also visiting terms. Thus, there were material contradictions in her statement and the same cannot be relied upon. Except PW9, no other witness had deposed against the accused.

The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on an elaborate appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others vs State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134; Vijay Kumar vs State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124.

Hence, we see no tangible reason to interfere with the final conclusion so arrived at by the trial Court; rather we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal of respondent is well-merited and needs no interference.

So far as the application seeking to condone the delay in filing the Criminal Acquittal Appeal is concerned, a perusal of the file reveals that there was 229 days delay in filing the appeal. The judgment impugned came to be delivered on 27.10.2017. In the application, the State has not mentioned as to when it had applied for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment. Though it is revealed that the sanction to file the appeal was given on 01.02.2018, however, the appeal came to be filed only on 15.09.2018, i.e., after a lapse of seven and half months after according sanction to file the appeal. The applicant has failed to give any cogent reason for this delay, let alone explain day-to-day delay in filing the appeal. Delay in filing the appeal after the statutory period of limitation prescribed cannot be condoned as a matter of course. The party seeking condonation of delay was required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Merely saying that the delay was on account of procedural aspect, is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The application, therefore, does not deserve to be allowed on its own merits.

Accordingly, CONCR No.58/2018 is dismissed.

Consequently, Criminal Acquittal Appeal along with SLA No.70/2018 shall stand dismissed.