Gauhati High Court
Xavier Tirki vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 26 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010098962025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/531/2025
XAVIER TIRKI
S/O. SRI PRABHU SUKRA, RESIDENT OF BOGAPANI T.E.16 NO. LINE, P.S.
DIGBOI, DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:ANJALI BONDO
S/O SRI GANGARAM MONGRA
RESIDENT OF BOGAPANI T.E.16 NO. LINE
P.S. DIGBOI
DISTRICT TINSUKIA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M BARMAN, FOR LEGAL AID
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 26.05.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-
Page No.# 2/3
appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public
Prosecutor assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1,
State of Assam.
2. The instant application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 seeking condonation of delay of 153 days in preferring the connected
appeal under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The connected criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Oder
dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-special Judge [POCSO], Tinsukia ['the Special Court'] in POCSO Case no.
108[M] of 2022. Though initially charges were framed against the applicant for
the offence under Section 376[1], Indian Penal Code [IPC] and under Section 4,
POCSO Act, the learned Special Court by the Judgment and Order dated
27.11.2024 has convicted the applicant only under Section 376[1], IPC and the
applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The learned Special Court has recorded
that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under the POCSO Act
against the applicant-appellant.
3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
application, more particularly, paragraphs 4 & 5 thereof.
4. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, the interest
of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits
after effecting service of notice on the victim.
Page No.# 3/3
5. On 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 153 days showing sufficient cause.
6. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has
been convicted under Section 376[1], IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the
connected appeal is heard on merits. The issuance of notice to the opposite
party no. 2/victim is dispensed with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the
connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party no.
2/victim is to be ensured and the opposite party no. 2/victim would be heard, if
the opposite party no. 2/victim enters appearance after service of notice.
7. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the
delay of 153 days in preferring the connected appeal.
8. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same
in the admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
