The court dismissed the appeal and application for condonation of delay, holding the 110-day delay inordinate and insufficiently explained. The court found no perversity in the impugned judgment.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed. Petition dismissed as barred by time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25
Versus
MAHAVIR @ SHER SINGH & OTHER ..... Respondents Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 12.04.2017
Crl. M.A. No. 5828/2017 (for condonation of delay) & CRL.L.P. 206/2017
There is a delay of 110 days in filing the petition. The only plea taken in the application for condonation of delay is that the appeal could not be filed due to administrative reasons as it took a long time for obtaining the final approval. Reasons explained in the application are vague and are not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay of 110 days. Even on merits, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment.
Brief facts are that respondents (accused) are neighbours of complainant PW2 Roshan Lal, who has alleged that on 23rd May, 2014, at
about 7:30 PM he heard some noises outside his house. When he came out, he saw respondent no. 1 hurling abuses at him. When he objected to this, respondent no. 1 became furious and brought a lathi from the jhuggi and gave a blow on his head. In the meanwhile wife and son of respondent no.1, that is, respondent nos.2 and 3 also came out of the jhuggi. When PW8 Bala (wife of PW2) and PW9 Khanna Singh (Brother-in-law of PW2) tried to intervene, they were beaten by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Complainant was immediately taken to a private clinic of PW3 Dr. Hari Singh at Jalebi Chowk, Sultan Puri, who informed the police.
Trial court has noted that the statements of PW3 Dr. Hari Singh, PW8 Bala and PW9 Khanna Singh suffer from various inherent discrepancies and contradictions, which have been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment. While deposing in Court, PW2 was not able to give the exact date and month of the incident, inasmuch as, he gave the time of incident to be between 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM; whereas, as per the FIR, incident took place at about 7:30 PM. PW-2 stated that he fell unconscious after the respondent no. 1 gave a lathi blow to him, therefore, he did not notice as to whether respondent nos. 2 and 3 had assaulted PW8 and PW9 or not. His version, that he fell unconscious after the incident, was not supported by
PW3 Dr. Hari Singh, who has categorically stated that PW2 Roshan Lal was conscious and in full senses when he came to his clinic. As per PW3 Dr. Hari Singh, Roshan Lal had arrived in his clinic at about 7:00 PM, which is also much prior to the time of incident as mentioned in the FIR. PW4 and PW5 did not assign any role to respondent no. 3 Sangeeta. As per PW9, respondent no. 3 Sangeeta was not even present at the spot. As per the prosecution, a lathi was used and in fact was even recovered in the presence of PW2. However, PW2 Roshan Lal has denied this fact. He has stated that the lathi was not recovered in his presence. He has further stated that his thumb impressions were taken by the police on some papers, contents whereof were not read over to him. PW9 Khanna Singh has narrated a totally different story. He introduced a new fact of stones being hurled by the minor children of the respondent no. 2 and one Shiva. As per the prosecution, Shiva is not an accused. PW9 Khanna Singh further stated that he does not know as to how PW2 Roshan Lal sustained injuries. PW9 Khanna Singh has not assigned any role to respondent no. 3 Sangeeta or for that matter to respondent no. 2. PW8 Bala also did not support the prosecution’s story. According to her, the blow was given by an iron rod. This is also not the case of the prosecution as set up in the FIR.
For the foregoing reasons, application seeking condonation of delay is
dismissed. Petition is also dismissed as barred by time.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
APRIL 12, 2017 rb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal is condonable.
Whether the impugned judgment exhibits perversity.
Whether the appeal is barred by time.
State
Mahavir @ Sher Singh & Others
A.K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
