Brijmohan Gokulprasad Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 386 Bom

                                           (1)
                                                          940 criappln-1917.2021.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            940 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1917 OF 2021
      IN APEALST/5724/2021 WITH APPLN/1918/2021 IN APEALST/
                            5724/2021

                    BRIJMOHAN GOKULPRASAD JAISWAL
                                 VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    ...
             Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant.
           Mr. R.D. Sanap, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 - State.
       Ms. Madhuri Jain, Advocate appointed for respondent No. 2.
                                    ...

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

                                   DATE    :     11-01-2022.


 ORDER :

1. Heard both sides.

2. There is delay of 771 days caused in filing Criminal

Appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 15.05.2019 in Special Case

(Atrocity) No. 23/2018.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the

delay of 771 days is caused in filing criminal appeal. The applicant

was under trial. The applicant is 68 years of age and he has

allegedly committed rape on maid servant in the house. Thus,

considering the nature of the allegations and subsequent conviction,

no one in the family has taken care to file appeal against the

940 criappln-1917.2021.odt

judgment and order of conviction. Learned Counsel submits that the

applicant was also not knowing about his rights to prefer an appeal

against the judgment and order of conviction.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has strongly

resisted the application on the ground that there is an inordinate

delay in filing the criminal appeal, which is not explained reasonably.

5. We have heard learned A.P.P.

6. The applicant / original accused remained as under trial

prisoner and by an order dated 15.05.2019 the Additional Sessions

Judge, Nanded has convicted him for the offence punishable under

Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment

for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also found him

guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of the

Indian Penal Code, however, no specific sentence has been passed.

The applicant is also further convicted for the offences punishable

under Section 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. The

applicant is at present 68 years of age. It is submitted that he was

not knowing about his rights to prefer criminal appeal against the

judgment and order of conviction. Furthermore, no one from his

family has taken care to obtain legal advice for filing the criminal

appeal. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, we are

940 criappln-1917.2021.odt

inclined to condone the delay.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the

application, Criminal Application No. 1917 of 2021 is allowed in

terms of prayer clause [B] and is accordingly disposed of.

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

 VD_Dhirde