Gauhati High Court
Jiten Barman vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 19 July, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010150872025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/734/2025
JITEN BARMAN
S/O PARAMESWAR BARMAN, R/O NAYTAMARA PT II, P.S. BONGAIGAON,
DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
TO BE REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.
2:JANAKI BARMAN
W/O ARUN BARMAN
R/O NOITAMARA PART II
P.S. BONGAIGAON
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,MD. MEMON
AHMED,MS. B. HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 19.07.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Page No.# 2/3
Heard Ms. B. Hazarika, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan,
learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of
Assam.
2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking
condonation of delay of 9 days, which has occurred in filing the accompanying criminal
appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal under
Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a Judgment and
Order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon ['the
Special Court', for short] in Special [P] Case no. 01[BGN] of 2024, which arose out of
Bongaigaon Police Station Case no. 399 of 2023. By the Judgment and Order dated
02.04.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section
376[AB], IPC read with Section 506, IPC read with Section 6, Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In view of Section 42, POCSO Act, the applicant-
appellant has been sentenced only under Section 6, POCSO Act. For the offence under
Section 6, POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. For the offence under
Section 506, IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the application, more
particularly, Paragraph - 2 thereof.
4. Having gone through the said statements and averments made in this application, we
are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the
circumstances showing sufficient cause for which the delay of 9 days had occurred in
preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. We are also of the considered view that since
the applicant appellant has been sentenced for a period of 20 [twenty] years, the interest of
justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits
after condoning the period of delay, which is not significant.
5. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the
Page No.# 3/3
period of sentence is for 20 [twenty] years, the accompanying criminal appeal is to be heard
on merits after effecting service upon the opposite party no. 2-informant. We deem it proper,
in the interest of justice and for expeditious consideration of the accompanying criminal
appeal, to dispense with the notice to the opposite party no. 2-informant at this stage. The
opposite party no. 2-informant has been impleaded in the accompanying criminal appeal as
respondent no. 2. As the accompanying criminal appeal would be heard only after effecting
due service upon the respondent no. 2, the notice to the opposite-respondent no. 2, at this
stage, is not necessary and hence has been dispensed with.
6. For the afore-state reasons, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed.
7. The Registry to register the accompanying criminal appeal and, thereafter, to list the
same for admission.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
