Bombay High Court
Lahu S/O. Deoram Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 944 appln 1162-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
944 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1162 OF 2020
IN APEALST/378/2020
LAHU S/O. DEORAM PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S. S. Londhe
APP for Respondent no.1-State: Mr. S. S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Ujwal Patil (appointed)
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 9th MARCH, 2022.
....
P. C. :
1. Heard both the sides.
2. By judgment and order of conviction dated 25/01/2019 the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 245 of
2017 convicted the appellant / accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act and 363 of IPC and sentenced
him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.50,000/-,
in default, R.I. for fve months for an offence punishable under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three
years and to pay a fne of Rs.10,000/-, in default, S.I. for two
2 944 appln 1162-20
months for an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the
accused guilty under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(E) of IPC, no
separate sentence has been passed. Further, out of the fne
amount, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is directed to be paid to the
informant i.e. mother of the victim girl, for and on behalf of the
victim girl.
3. The applicant has preferred the appeal against the said
judgment and order of conviction which is delayed by 355 days.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that the
applicant / accused was under trial and he is in jail since date of
his arrest in connection with the crime. The learned appointed
counsel submits that the applicant / accused has submitted his
application for legal aid through jail and certain time was
consumed for processing the said application. Learned counsel
submits that there was no intentional delay as such and the
applicant was prevented from suffcient cause to prefer appeal
within limitation.
5. Learned counsel for respondent non.2 has strongly resisted
the application on the ground that delay has not been explained
satisfactorily.
3 944 appln 1162-20
6. Learned APP submits that appropriate order may be passed.
7. It appears that the applicant was under trial and though he
was convicted by the trial court by judgment and order of
conviction dated 25/01/2019, however, the applicant could not
prefer an appeal on his own due to his fnancial poor condition.
The applicant has thereafter sent the letter for legal aid through jail
authority. Thus, in view of the same, we are inclined to condone
the delay. It is necessary to give one opportunity to the applicant
to hear his appeal on merits. In view of the same and for the
reasons stated in the application, criminal application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause "B" and disposed of accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vsm/-
