Allahabad High Court
Chandrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Nand Prabha Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195756-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 118 of 2023
Appellant :- Chandrapal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Kartikey Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1.
2. The appellant is the son of the P.W. 1 - Jaggo @ Jagdish who was brother-in-law of the deceased Rajaram. As per stamp reporter's report, this appeal against the acquittal of opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 has been filed beyond limitation by 3221 days. Certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2012 in Session Trial No.21 of 2001 (State Vs. Devisingh, Vijay Singh and Rupa Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.237 of 2000 under Section 307, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Farah, District Mathura, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Mathura, was allegedly applied by the present appellant on 28.09.2022 which was prepared and received by him on 25.04.2023. The appeal has been filed on 6.10.2023. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his father Jaggo @ Jagdish (P.W. - 1) had died on 31.03.2005 i.e. about 18 years ago.
In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, the appellant has explained the delay in paragraphs 4 and 5, as under :
"4. That father of the appellant was died and thereafter appellant was regularly in touch of his local counsel and he was assured that trial of aforesaid case is pending and order has been passed.
5. That again and again only assurance was given by local counsel regarding pendency of trial then the appellant contacted another counsel, who made inquiry and found that trial has already decided in year, 2012 and accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has been acquitted by trial court vide order dated 27.09.2012 and when came to know he shocked and after obtaining judgment, he immediately contacted his counsel but due to poor financial condition he could not pay the fees and expenses of case and after returning due to shock he fell ill and after recovery of his health, he contacted his present counsel in the second Week of August, 2023 and made request to file present appeal against opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and due to this reason appellant could not approach this Hon'ble Court just after passing the judgment and order dated 27.09.2012, hence some delay has been caused in filing the present criminal appeal and act of the appellant in not approaching the Hon'ble Court earlier neither deliberate nor intentional and in view of facts and circumstances, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that this may be pleased to allow this application and condone the delay in filing the present appeal and treat the same as well within time and hear the matter on merit, otherwise appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
Perusal of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application shows that the appellant has completely failed to offer any acceptable explanation for delay of 3221 days. Under the circumstances, the delay can not be condoned and the delay condonaton application deserves to be rejected.
For all the reasons aforestated, the Delay Condonation Application no.1 of 2023 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023/vkg
