Navaghana @ Nabaghana vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 8111 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 CRLA No.185 of 2019

                  In the matter of an Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of
            Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and
            order of sentence dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional
            Sessions Judge, Chatrapur (Ganjam) in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2013
            (Sessions Trial No.368 of 2012-GDC).

                                          ----

Navaghana @ Nabaghana .... Appellant Pradhan

-versus-

State of Odisha .... Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

                        For Appellant     -      Mr.Jitendra Samantaray,
                                                 (Advocate)

                        For Respondent    -      Mr.S.K.Nayak,
                                                 Additional Government Advocate

                  CORAM:

                  MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                  DR. JUSTICE S.K.PANIGRAHI

Date of Hearing :05.07.2023 : Date of Judgment:24.07.2023 D.Dash,J. 1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur (Ganjam) in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2013 (Sessions Trial No.368 of

CRLA No.185 of 2019 {{ 2 }}

2012-GDC), arising out of G.R. Case No.180 of 2011, corresponding to Polasara P.S. Case No.69 of 2011 of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kodala.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 341/302/307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC') and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 302 of the IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five (05) years and pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with the direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently .

2. The Memorandum of Appeal having been presented on 29.03.2019, there has been delay of 1865 days in filing the Appeal. Therefore, an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1865 days, i.e., 5 years, 1 month and 2 days in preferring the Appeal which has been numbered as Interim Application (I.A.) No.564 of 2019.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is in jail custody since 22.04.2017. He further submitted that the Appellant being a rustic villager was not aware about the legal procedure. He further submitted that neither the Jail Authorities

CRLA No.185 of 2019 {{ 3 }}

nor anyone else had informed him about the statutory right to prefer the Appeal in assailing the conviction and sentence. Therefore, delay has occasioned in filing the Criminal Appeal and that being neither deliberate nor intentional, this Court should condone the delay. He therefore submitted that the prayer for condonation of the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal need be allowed by taking a liberal approach.

5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the explanations for such long delay of more than five (5) years are wholly vague and not at all plausible.

6. Considering the submissions and on going through the averments made in the Application, the grounds, as stated in support of condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Appeal, are per se found not acceptable. On a close reading of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Appeal, it is seen that the application does not disclose any satisfactory explanation justifying such long delay of more than five years (5 years) in filing the Criminal Appeal. There is complete absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay. In fact, the Appellant is found to have sat over the matter for such a long time by not taking any step to file the Appeal and during the period he has also not availed the opportunities, as to the assistance as readily available in the jail. When the Authorities are ordained to take all such steps in seeing that the convict gets all such opportunity available in law, it is however not stated that the Authorities purposefully remained silent and the Appellant was kept in dark. For the aforesaid, when it is noticed that the Appellant

CRLA No.185 of 2019 {{ 4 }}

having woken up from deep slumber on a fine morning giving a second thought to his earlier decision, has filed this Appeal. Such a highly belated move without any plausible explanation if entertained, in our view will rather offend the legislative intent behind the provisions contained in the Limitation Act and open flood gates.

7. We, therefore decline to condone the long delay of 5 years, 1 month and 2 days in filing this Appeal.

8. Accordingly, the I.A. and the CRLA stand dismissed.

(D. Dash), Judge.

                              Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J.     I Agree.



                                                                       (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi),
                                                                            Judge.



         Gitanjali




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Jul-2023 17:11:14

                     CRLA No.185 of 2019