State vs Raju

Tashi Rabstan, J.—This Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 191/2014 is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned

3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jammu, in File No. 69/Sessions, titled as, State v. Raju, whereby the learned trial Court, while

dismissing the case of prosecution, acquitted the accused of the: offences under Section 363/376 RPC in case FIR No. 69/2005, registered at

Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the acquittal of the respondent-accused is well merited. The

prosecutrix had several opportunities to run away as she was travelling to different places in public vehicles. Thus, she had sufficient opportunities

at such public places thronged by multitude of people to raise an alarm to seek their help and narrate her woes. Her silence at such public places

and public vehicles leads to the only conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that she was a consenting party in the whole episode and had

gone with the accused willfully without any threat, coercion or inducement. Even both the doctors in their statements had deposed that the

prosecutrix was habitual of sexual inter-course and no mark of violence on any part of her body including genitalia was found. Therefore, we are of

the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment as the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused.

Since there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, therefore, the appellant-State has also filed the condonation application bearing No.

184/2014, seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Along with the condonation application, appellant-State has also filed SLAA No.

202/2014 seeking leave to file the appeal.

The reasons put forth by the appellant to seek condonation of delay are that after passing of the judgment on 27.09.2013, the matter was

examined and forwarded to the Government for filing of acquittal appeal. Subsequently, the matter was considered at the administrative level and

sanction for filing of the acquittal appeal was issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs vide Order No. 878-LD(ACQ)

of 2014 dated 18.02.2014. Thereafter, the counsel for appellant drafted the appeal and sent it to the applicant for signatures. It is averred that

thereafter the applicant took some time to deliver the signed papers back to the counsel.

It has clearly been mentioned at paragraph-5 of the application that the sanction for filing the criminal acquittal appeal was issued on

18.02.2014. Thereafter the appeal was drafted and the applicant took some time to sign the appeal and other papers. It is pertinent to mention

here that the appeal along with the condonation application was filed on 28.07.2014. It is amazing that the plausible explanation of ""sometime

given by the appellant in drafting and signing the appeal is only five months and 10 days, i.e., 159 days. Therefore, the explanation given by the

appellant is not worth acceptance. The party seeking condonation of delay is required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause justifying

condonation of delay. Sufficient cause may be considered only if the circumstances that disabled it in filing the appeal within time were spelt out.

Mere saying that it had taken some time to file the appeal, as the matter had to go through at different levels, is not sufficient to condone the delay.

The applicant has failed to explain the reasons for day to day delay in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay, therefore, may not

deserve allowance on its own merit. We do not consider the cause projected in the application sufficient to condone the delay.

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed along

with the application seeking leave to file the appeal. Consequently, the criminal acquittal appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. Registry is

directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State for setting right the things at his end.