Gauhati High Court
Bichitra Ruhi Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010107792024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/739/2024
BICHITRA RUHI DAS
S/O LATE BIPUL RUHI DAS,
BETBARI NO- 2 KONWAR GAON, P.S. AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.
2:PURNIMA KARMAKAR
W/O RAJU KARMAKAR
VILL.- BETBARI 2 NO. KONWAR GAON
P.S. AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS S BARPUJARI,MS. A LALA,MRS R BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M BARMAN, LEGAL AID COUNSEL, R2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 06.06.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant; Mr. R.R. Kaushik,
Page No.# 2/3
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam; and Ms. M.
Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant.
2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking
condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal which is yet
to be numbered and registered.
3. The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred under Section 415, Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to assail a Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Special Judge - cum - Special Judge [POCSO], Sivasagar ['the
Special Court', for short] in Special [POCSO] Case no. 37/2022. By the Judgment and Order
dated 30.01.2023, the learned Special Court has convicted the applicant-appellant for the
offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act,
2012 as well as under Section 376 [3] of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and also under Section
366, IPC. In view of Section 42, 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/-, with
default stipulations, under Section 6, POCSO Act. The applicant-appellant has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 [ten] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with
default stipulations, under Section 366, IPC. Both the sentences are ordered to run
concurrently.
4. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
interlocutory application, more particularly, in Paragraphs - 6 & 7 thereof. It is averred that
after the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, the applicant has lost his
father as his father breathed his last on 27.07.2023. It is stated that due to demise of his
father, the applicant-appellant ran into financial difficulties, which has resulted in preferring
the appeal with delay.
5. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of
Assam and Ms. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant
have fairly submitted that they have no objection if the period of delay is condoned and the
Page No.# 3/3
criminal appeal is heard on merits.
6. Having regard to the statements and averments made in the instant application and
the reason shown for delay, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has
been able to explain the period of delay showing sufficient cause. We are of the considered
view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 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 of 423 days.
7. It has been emphasized that substantial justice being paramount and pivotal, the
technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis and no
presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay. It is further emphasized that a
liberal approach has to be followed unless there is gross negligence on the part of the
applicant-appellant. The conviction of the applicant-appellant also has a connection with the
right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. In view of the above, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 423 days
in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed.
9. The Registry to register the accompanying criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the
appeal in the admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
