Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State vs Mohd. Raees on 31 March, 2021
Sr. No. 209
`HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SLA No.70/2018
c/w
CONCR No.58/2018
Date:31.03.2021
State ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA
versus
Mohd. Raees ...Respondents
Through: Mr. K.M. Bhatti, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Tashi Rabstan-J
1. By way of this condonation application, the appellant is seeking to
condone 229 days delay in filing the above-titled Criminal Acquittal Appeal
against the judgment dated 27.10.2017 delivered by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Rajouri, whereby the respondent herein has been acquitted of
the charges framed under Sections 302, 201 RPC in FIR No.48/2014. Along
with the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has also filed SLA
No.70/2018 seeking leave of the Court to file the appeal.
2. Before dealing with the application for condonation of delay, we deem it
appropriate to examine the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge,
Rajouri, to find out as to whether or not any interference is warranted
therewith, so that injustice may not occasion merely because of lapse on the
part of the appellant-State in filing of appeal within the prescribed period of
limitation.
Page 2 of 4 SLA 70/2018
3. A perusal of the file reveals that in order to prove the guilt of accused the
prosecution had examined as many as 26 witnesses, out of the total cited 28
witnesses.
4. PW1 Mohd. Sharief - father of deceased, PW2 Safina Kouser - wife of
deceased, PW3 Parvaiz Ahmed - an independent witness, PW6 Mohd. Iqbal -
father-in-law of deceased, PW7 Mohd. Imran - an independent witness and
PW9 Anjum Kouser - bhabhi of deceased were the material witnesses in the
sense that all of them had categorically deposed that the deceased and the
accused were good friends and both of them used to remain together. It has
also come in their statements that there was no dispute between the deceased
and the accused. Even father of the deceased, namely, Mohd. Sharief had
specifically deposed that from the date of occurrence, i.e., 24.10.2013 to till
recording of his statement on 04.02.2014, he did not make any statement
against the accused to the police. It has also come on record, as deposed by
many witnesses, that the deceased used to take alcohol. Although PW9 Anjum
Kouser had deposed that the accused was suspicious about the deceased having
illicit relations with the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of accused, however, she had
also deposed that the deceased and accused were very good friends and had
visiting terms, so much so their family members had also visiting terms. Thus,
there were material contradictions in her statement and the same cannot be
relied upon. Except PW9, no other witness had deposed against the accused.
5. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on an
elaborate appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law
that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence,
however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by
Page 3 of 4 SLA 70/2018
the trial Court is a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings
recorded by the trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the
evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others vs State of
Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134; Vijay Kumar vs State by Inspector General,
(2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC
124.
6. Hence, we see no tangible reason to interfere with the final conclusion so
arrived at by the trial Court; rather we are of the considered opinion that the
acquittal of respondent is well-merited and needs no interference.
7. So far as the application seeking to condone the delay in filing the
Criminal Acquittal Appeal is concerned, a perusal of the file reveals that there
was 229 days delay in filing the appeal. The judgment impugned came to be
delivered on 27.10.2017. In the application, the State has not mentioned as to
when it had applied for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment. Though it
is revealed that the sanction to file the appeal was given on 01.02.2018,
however, the appeal came to be filed only on 15.09.2018, i.e., after a lapse of
seven and half months after according sanction to file the appeal. The applicant
has failed to give any cogent reason for this delay, let alone explain day-to-day
delay in filing the appeal. Delay in filing the appeal after the statutory period of
limitation prescribed cannot be condoned as a matter of course. The party
seeking condonation of delay was required to satisfy the Court that there was
sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Merely saying that the delay
was on account of procedural aspect, is not a sufficient cause to condone the
delay. The application, therefore, does not deserve to be allowed on its own
merits.
Page 4 of 4 SLA 70/2018
8. Accordingly, CONCR No.58/2018 is dismissed.
9. Consequently, Criminal Acquittal Appeal along with SLA No.70/2018
shall stand dismissed.
JAMMU (SANJAY DHAR) (TASHI RABSTAN)
31.03.2021 JUDGE JUDGE
(Anil Sanhotra)
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No
ANIL SANHOTRA
2021.03.31 14:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
