State vs Darvinder Kumar And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 119 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No. 231

               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                          AT JAMMU



                                                 SLA 88/2015
                                                 CONCR 73/2015

State                                                           ..... Petitioner (s)

                                Through :- Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh GA

                          V/s

Darvinder Kumar and another                                    .....Respondent(s)

                                Through :- None

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE


                                   ORDER

1 This application filed by the State under Section 417(1) of Cr.P.C

seeking leave of this Court to file Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the

judgment dated 28.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri in

case titled 'State vs. Darvinder and another' is delayed by 402 days. An

application seeking condonation of delay is also separately filed. In the said

application, it is pleaded that delay of 402 days in filing the leave application

has occasioned on account of the fact that the applicant/State, after obtaining a

copy of the judgment of acquittal, considered the matter at different level and

ultimately referred the same to the Law Department seeking permission to file

Criminal Acquittal Appeal and it was only after the Law Department granted

sanction, the same along with applications seeking leave to file appeal and

condonation of delay was filed before this Court. This is how the State has

sought to explain the huge delay of more than one year.

2 The explanation furnished by the State cannot, by any stretch of

reasoning, be held to be a sufficient cause which has prevented it to file the

application seeking leave to file appeal in time. That apart, I have gone through

the judgment impugned. The appeal is not sustainable even on merits. The

prosecution witnesses particularly PW Rajeshwari Devi, the mother of the

deceased, PW Pawan Kumar, the brother of the deceased and PW Sita Ram,

the Sarpanch of village Bagnoti have not supported the prosecution version

suggesting abetment to suicide of deceased Anju Bala. It is also not proved by

the prosecution by leading any evidence that the accused persons i.e husband

and mother-in-law of the deceased had been treating the deceased with cruelty.

3 The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, thus, rightly

concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the soon

before the death of Anju Bala, she had been subjected to any cruelty or

harassment by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry to

constitute an offence under Section 306 read with Section 498-A RPC.

4 Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and having regard to

the fact that the applicant/State has no case even on merits, I am not inclined to

condone the huge delay of 402 days in filing the application seeking leave to

file appeal against judgment of acquittal, that too, when no satisfactory

explanation has been tendered therefor.

5 In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is

dismissed. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal also stands

dismissed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 16.02.2021 Sanjeev

SANJEEV KUMAR UPPAL 2021.02.22 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document