Banthu @ Biranchi Swain vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 10801 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        CRLA No.920 of 2023

        Banthu @ Biranchi Swain                  ....            Appellant

                                                Mr. C. Pattnaik, Advocate

                                     -versus-

        State of Odisha                         ....         Respondent
                                                 Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC


                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
                  DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                              ORDER

04.09.2023 Order No. I.A. No.1967 of 2023

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual / physical) mode.

2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 3469 days (9 years 6 months 4 days) in preferring the Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is in custody for all these years. He further submits that on conclusion of the Trial, the Appellant was held guilty of the offences under Section 302/498(A)/34 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No.183 of 2012 and was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and

// 2 //

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and R.I for three years for the offence under section 498(A)/34 of the IPC and R.I for one year for the offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act. It is also submitted that the Appellant being in custody, remained under a bona fide impression that appeal has been preferred, but on verification, he could know that no appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment. He submits that the delay in filing the Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, he urged for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the move citing the period of delay for more than half a decade and contending the explanation to be too casual and unacceptable for a moment.

5. The submissions in support of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, are found to be per se not acceptable and we are not in a position to say that the explanations as are offered for such long delay of nine (9) years, six (6) months and four (4) days in filing the Appeal are satisfactory. There surfaces no sufficient cause to condone the delay. In fact, the Appellant is found to have sat over the matter for a long time by not filing the Appeal and during the period, he has also not availed of the opportunities of seeking any such assistance as readily available in the jail. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the long delay in filing the Appeal.

6. The I.A. is dismissed.

// 3 //

7. Consequently, the CRLA is dismissed being barred by limitation.

                       .                                             (D. Dash)
                                                                       Judge




                                                                (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
                                                                        Judge




           Gitanjali




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Sep-2023 14:23:02