Gauhati High Court
Bijoy Singh Phangcho vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 4 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010156552020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/523/2020
BIJOY SINGH PHANGCHO
S/O- JOYSINGH PHANGCHO, VILL.- RONGPIRBI, P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU,
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
2:SMT. JAYA JIGDUNG
D/O- JOLENDRA JIGDUNG
VILL.- UPPER EKORINI
P.S. MANJA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case :
BIJOY SINGH PHANGCHO
KARBIANGLONG
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/3
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. (A)
------------
Advocate for : MR. B DEKA
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. (A)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 04-01-2021
Heard Mr. I. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. A. Begum,
learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.
Notice issued for service on the respondent No. 2 returned after service vide the police
report. Notice has been received by the respondent No. 2 herself. However, none appeared
for the respondent No. 2 on call.
By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the applicant has
prayed for condonation of delay of 506 days in filing the connected Criminal Appeal under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned Judgment and
Order, dated 12.04.2019, passed by the learned Session Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, in
Sessions Case No. 74/2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 849/2016, whereby the appellant
was convicted u/s 366/376(2)(I) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 1 (one) year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month for Section
366 IPC and R.I. of 10 (Ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default S.I. for 2 (two)
months for Section 376(2)(I) of the IPC.
Mr. I. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the required appeal
against the judgment and order of conviction could not be taken within the prescribed period
of limitation as the applicant has three family members consisting of his mother, wife and a
new born baby after the death of his father. On the other hand, the applicant's wife is also
undergoing treatment for post pregnancy complexities and that due to their poor financial
Page No.# 3/3
background, no steps could be taken for preferring an appeal in time against the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction.
Having considered the aforesaid grounds, this Court is satisfied that for sufficient
grounds beyond the control of the applicant, no appeal could be preferred against the
aforesaid judgment and order of conviction. Therefore, the delay of 506 days in preferring the
connected appeal beyond the period of limitation is hereby condoned.
Registry to register the connected Criminal Appeal and list the matter for admission on
11.01.2021.
This disposes off the interlocutory application.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
