Gujarat High Court
Ushaben W/O. Maheshbhai Behcharbhai ... vs Anilbhai Shankarbhai Parmar on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13671/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 13671 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14790 of 2025
With
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14790 of 2025
==========================================================
USHABEN W/O. MAHESHBHAI BEHCHARBHAI PARMAR AND D/O.
BHAGUBHAI LAKHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
ANILBHAI SHANKARBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
FRESH NOTICE SERVED(4512) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. KRINA CALLA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1) This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation of delay of 119 days in preferring appeal against judgment of acquittal.
2) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant Mr.M.M. Bukhari for V.A. Kureshi and Ms Krina Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 00:35:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13671/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Calla learned APP for respondent no. 2 State. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 1 none appeared. Thus, this application is not opposed by the respondent no. 1.
3) Respondent no.1 was prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Section 376(2)(F)(N), 376(3), 506(2), 323 of IPC and under Section 4(2), 5(L)(N), 6, 12 of POCSO Act. After conclusion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted of all the said charges. Aggrieved thereby, the mother of the prosecutrix being a victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment of the acquittal. There is a delay of 119 days in preferring the appeal. Explaining the said delay, it is stated that the appellant is an illiterate lady and being oblivious of the procedure prescribed for preferring an appeal and also due to some communication gap in contacting her advocate to prefer an appeal, this delay of 119 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 00:35:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13671/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined days took place in preferring the appeal. The said explanation offered by the applicant in explaining the said delay is not opposed, controverted and denied by the first respondent who did not contest the petition. Therefore, as the appellant is a rustic woman and also an illiterate woman and as it is stated that she could not contact her advocate and is not aware of the procedure in preferring the appeal, we are of the considered view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. So, she is entitled for condonation of the said delay to enable her to pursue her appeal.
4) Resultantly, the application is allowed condoning the delay of 119 days in preferring the appeal.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) YASH ARORA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 00:35:55 IST 2025