Gauhati High Court
Robin Deka vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010079792025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/536/2025
ROBIN DEKA
SON OF SRI KALIA DEKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BEHARBARI, KHETRI,
KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SMTI PABITRI DAS
DAUGHTER OF SRI NANDESWAR DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORAHU
KHETRI
KAMRUP METRO
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0
SRI ROBIN DEKA
SON OF SRI KALIA DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BEHARBARI
KHETRI
KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2:SMTI PABITRI DAS
DAUGHTER OF SRI NANDESWAR DEKA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORAHU
KHETRI
KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MS BIJITA SARMA
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 28.05.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Ms. B. Sarma, 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. The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
preferred seeking condonation of delay of 154 days in preferring the connected criminal
appeal from jail. The connected criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment dated
03.10.2024 and an Order on Sentence dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge [POCSO], Kamrup [Metro], Guwahati ['the
trial court', for short] in Sessions [Special] Case no. 46/2023. By the Judgment and Order on
Sentence, the learned trial court has convicted the applicant-appellant both under Section
376AB and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act,
2012. In view of Section 42, POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to
Page No.# 3/4
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one year under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
interlocutory application or more particularly, Paragraph - 4. From the statements and
averments maintained in Paragraph - 4, it transpires that the period of delay has occurred in
the process of preferring the accompanying criminal appeal by the applicant-appellant from
jail with the assistance of the learned Legal Aid Counsel.
4. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted 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 connected appeal is heard on
merits after effecting service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2.
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 154 days showing sufficient cause.
6. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been
convicted both under Section 376AB and under Section 6, POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years, interest of justice will be better sub-
served if the connected appeal is heard on merits expeditiously after condoning the period of
delay of 154 days. The issuance of notice to the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is dispensed
with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, service of notice
upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is to be ensured and the opposite party-respondent
no. 2 would be heard, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service
of notice.
7. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of
154 days in preferring the connected appeal.
Page No.# 4/4
8. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same in the
admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
