State vs Sobat Ali

Tashi Rabstan, J.—This Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 192/2014 is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed by the learned

3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jammu, in File No. 161/Sessions, titled as, State v. Sobat Ali alias Shama, whereby the

learned trial Court, while dismissing the case of prosecution, acquitted the accused of the offences under Section 376 RPC in case FIR No.

11/2005, registered at Police Station Nagrota. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the acquittal of the respondent-accused is well

merited. The statement of the prosecutrix suffered from number of infirmities and material discrepancies. Most of the material witnesses did not

support the prosecution story and had turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove the commission of rape by the accused with the

prosecutrix. Even the doctor also negated the commission of rape with the prosecutrix. The doctor in her statement had deposed that there was no

evidence of recent intercourse with the prosecutrix, besides the report of pathologist also negated the presence of spermatozoa on the vaginal

smears taken from posterior fornix of the prosecutrix. Thus, the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution story. 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 165 days in filing the appeal, therefore, the appellant-State has also filed the condonation application bearing No.

185/2014, seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Along with the condonation application, appellant-State has also filed S.L.A.A. No.

203/2014 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 29.10.2013, the matter was

examined and forwarded to the Government for filing 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. 277-LD(ACQ)

of 2014 dated 29.01.2014. 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

29.01.2014. 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 22.07.2014. It is amazing that the plausible explanation of ""sometime

given by the appellant in drafting and signing the appeal is only five months and 23 days, i.e., 173 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.