Swapna Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 702 Tri

Tripura High Court

Swapna Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura & Anr on 28 March, 2025

2

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
            I.A. No.1 of 2025 in Crl. A. No.2 of 2025

Swapna Debbarma
                                                       ---- Applicant(s)
                                Versus
The State of Tripura & Anr.
                                                      ----Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s)          :   Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :   Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.,
                              Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Adv.

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
                                Order

28/03/2025

Learned Counsel for the applicant-victim, Mr. Kawsik Nath is

present. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha is present for the

State. Learned Counsel, Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee being appointed

by the High Court legal Services Committee appeared on behalf of

the private-respondent.

The applicant-victim has preferred this appeal challenging

the judgment dated 24.06.2024 delivered by Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Dhalai District, Kamalpur in connection with case

No.ST(T-1)29 of 2018. By the said judgment, the private

respondent was acquitted from the charge levelled against him

punishable under Section 307/326 of IPC but he was convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to

pay fine of Rs.20,000/- i.d. to suffer SI for 6(six) months. Along

with memo of appeal, another application for condoning delay of

154 days is also filed.

In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant-

victim has drawn the attention of the Court that the appellant has

mentioned everything in para No.3 of the application regarding

the grounds of delay in preferring the appeal.

On the other side, Learned Counsel for the private-

respondent fairly submitted that in a case of this nature, it is the

duty of the applicant to explain the reasons of delay for the

satisfaction of the Court but from the contents of the application,

no where it is found that there are any suitable grounds projected

by the applicant to consider the application, as such, he urged for

dismissal of the condonation application.

Learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand urged before the Court

to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

I have heard both the sides and perused the application for

condonation of delay. It is on record that the Learned Counsel for

the applicant was appointed as legal aid Counsel by the respective

Committee of the High Court and there was considerable period of

delay in appointing him by the said Committee but in the

application, it was not mentioned when the applicant-victim

approached to the High Court for appointment of legal aid Counsel

to conduct the case.

However, considering the facts and circumstances and the

nature of allegation, the delay of 154 days appears to be justified

and satisfactory. Accordingly, the same is allowed.

Thus, the I.A. is disposed of.

                                                                    JUDGE



MOUMITA      MOUMITA DATTA

DATTA        -07'00'
Deepshikha