Gauhati High Court
Bijuram Tanti vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 2 May, 2025
Author: S. K. Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010212592024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/985/2024
In Crl. A. (J)/9312/2024
BIJURAM TANTI
S/O. LATE BELDHAR TANTI, VILL. BEHORA BORLIN, P/O. BOKAKHAT, P/S.
BOKAKHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785612.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:SARUSUWALI PATGIRI
W/O. SRI. RAHUL PATGIRI
VILL.- BALIGAON
ADARSH MISSING GAON
P/O. BOKAKHAT
P/S.- BOKAKHAT
DIST.- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : , MS. P DAS, LEGAL AID COUNSEL,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
02-05-2025
(S. K. Medhi, J)
Heard Ms. P. Das, learned Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the applicant.
Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam as well as Shri S. Nawaz,
learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no. 2.
The present application is for condonation of delay of 89 days in preferring
the connected appeal.
The appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order
dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat,
Assam in Special POCSO Case No. 03/2023 in connection with Bokakhat PS Case
No. 127/2022 registered under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, convicting the
accused/appellant under Section 6 of POCSO Act, and sentencing the appellant
to undergo RI for a period of 20 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
only, in default to undergo SI of another 1 month and also to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-.
Ms. Das, the learned Legal Aid Counsel has submitted that the delay has
occasioned due to factors beyond her control as certain documents which were
necessary for preferring the appeal had to be transmitted from the concerned
Golaghat district.
In this connection, she has drawn the attention of this Court to the
averments made in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the application.
Both Ms. S. Jahan, the learned Addl. PP, Assam as well as Shri Nawaz, the
Page No.# 3/3
learned Amicus for the respondent no. 2 have fairly submitted that since the
appeal has been preferred against an order of conviction, they would rather
oppose the same on merits than to oppose on the aspect of delay condonation.
An application praying for condonation of delay has to be dealt in a
pragmatic and justice oriented approach and technicalities should make way for
substantial justice.
Consideration the causes shown and also the nature of the appeal filed,
we are of the opinion that the delay of 89 days in preferring the appeal is liable
to be condoned which we accordingly do.
IA accordingly stands allowed.
The appeal is directed to be registered and listed for admission after a
week.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
