Gauhati High Court
Topan Doley vs The State Of Assam on 11 June, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010064622025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/313/2025
TOPAN DOLEY
SON OF HARILOM DOLEY, RESIDENT OF DAINI CHAPORI GAON, P.S.
DERGAON, DISTRICT GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
ASSAM
2:ARUNA GOWALA
WIFE OF SRI BUBUL GOWALA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LEMCHAPANI
AMGURI
P.S. DERGAON
PIN-78561
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. P B BORDOLOI, FOR LEGAL AID
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 11.06.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Page No.# 2/3
Heard Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms.
A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State
of Assam.
2. As per the Order dated 27.05.2025 of the Lawazima Court, service of notice upon the
respondent no. 2 is complete.
3. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant,
despite service of notice, till date.
4. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking
condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal against a
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 and an Order of Sentence dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Court
of learned Special Judge [POCSO] at Golaghat in Special [POCSO] Case no. 43/2018. By the
Judgment and the Order of Sentence, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the
offences under Section 307, Indian Penal Code [IPC], Section 376, IPC and under Section 4,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In view of Section 42,
POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
15 [fifteen] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, with default stipulation, under Section 4,
POCSO Act. For the offence under Section 307, IPC, the applicant-appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years and to pay a fine of Rs.
15,000/-, with default stipulation.
5. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the application, more
particularly, Paragraph - 2 thereof.
6. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the
applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 [fifteen]
years under Section 42, POCSO Act and undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years
under Section 307 IPC, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected
appeal is heard on merits. Service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2 has been
Page No.# 3/3
duly effected upon the respondent no. 2. Yet, the respondent no. 2 has not entered
appearance to submit any objection regarding delay.
7. Having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we are
of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of
delay of 30 days showing sufficient cause.
8. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 [fifteen] years under Section 4, POCSO
Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years under Section 307 IPC, interest of justice
will be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after
condoning the period of delay of thirty-seven days. The opposite party-respondent no. 2
would be heard in the accompanying criminal appeal, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2
enters appearance after service of notice.
9. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of 30
days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
10. The Registry to register the accompanying criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the
same in the admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
