Digambar Tukaram Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 1719 Bom

                                                            28-CriAppln-578-2022
                                       -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 28 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2022
                          IN APEALST/1483/2022

                    DIGAMBAR TUKARAM KADAM
                                VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                   .....
      Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Sachin S. (appointed)
               APP for Respondent-State : Mrs. D. S. Jape
                                   .....

                                 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
                                         SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 21st FEBRUARY, 2022

PER COURT:-

1. Heard.

2. The learned appointed counsel submits that the

applicant/appellant was under trial prisoner. He belongs to

economically weaker segment of society having financial constraints.

There is nobody in the family to prosecute the appeal. Learned

counsel submits that thus, the delay of 1610 days caused in filing the

present appeal. The same may be condoned and the appeal of the

applicant preferred against the judgment and order of conviction may

be heard on merits.

28-CriAppln-578-2022

3. Learned APP submits that appropriate order may be passed.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli by the judgment and

order of conviction dated 06.07.2017 in Sessions Trial No. 45/2015,

has convicted the applicant/appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. It further appears that due

to the financially weak position and since there is nobody in the

family to prosecute the appeal, the delay, though inordinate, is caused

in filing the appeal. Considering the entire aspect of the case and in

view of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, we are

inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the application is allowed in

terms of prayer clause "B" and disposed off accordingly.

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre