State v. Kanhaiya Lal Pathak

Delhi HC9 Jan 2025CRL.L.P./46/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: leave to appeal; acquittal; Section 376 IPC; prosecutrix PW-13; condonation of delay (40 days); CRL.M.A. 1144/2018; Sessions Case No. 190 of 2015; F.I.R No. 293 of 2012; Police Station Subhash Place; ASJ Special Fast Tract Court NorthWest Rohini; State v. Kanhaiya Lal Pathak; CRL.L.P. 46/2018; CRL.A./2025; Delhi High Court; Jasmeet Singh, J.; notice returnable 08.04.2025 before Joint Registrar.

What did the court decide?

40-day delay in filing the appeal condoned; leave to appeal granted to the petitioner (State) against the acquittal judgment dated 03.08.2017; appeal to be numbered CRL.A./2025; fresh notice issued to the respondent, returnable before the concerned Joint Registrar on 08.04.2025. ¶¶17

State Vs Kanhaiya Lal Pathak — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. +2 more

¶¶6

Court's answer

Sufficient reason has been shown for condonation of the 40-day delay in filing the appeal; the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the statement of PW-13 (Prosecutrix) has clearly made out the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC.ratio¶¶15
The respondent has been served but, despite repeated opportunities, has filed no reply.obiter¶¶16
The application is allowed and leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner (State) against the judgment dated 03.08.2017.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.), Order dated 09.01.2025 in CRL.L.P. 46/2018, State v. Kanhaiya Lal Pathak: (i) In CRL.M.A. 1144/2018, the 40-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the Court being satisfied that sufficient reason was shown and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate; (ii) leave to appeal was granted to the State against the acquittal of the respondent of the offence under Section 376 IPC by judgment dated 03.08.2017 of the learned ASJ, Special Fast Tract Court, NorthWest, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2015 (arising out of F.I.R No. 293 of 2012, Police Station Subhash Place). The Trial Court had acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the prosecutrix was inconsistent in her versions and delayed in reporting; this Court observed that, prima facie, the statement of PW-13 (Prosecutrix) clearly made out the ingredients of the offence, and noted that the respondent, though served, had filed no reply. Fresh notice was directed to issue, returnable before the concerned Joint Registrar on 08.04.2025.

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 46/2018 STATE .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP SI Chinki Yadav, PS Subhash Place

¶5

versus KANHAIYA LAL PATHAK .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 09.01.2025 CRL.M.A. 1144/2018-DELAY IN FILING APPEAL

¶6

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal.

¶7

It is stated that there was delay in the department and when the department received the permission, the appeal along with the application for leave to appeal was filed.

¶8

I am satisfied that sufficient reason has been shown for condonation of delay. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.

¶9

For the said reasons, the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

CRL.L.P. 46/2018

¶11

This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 03.08.2017 passed by learned ASJ, Special Fast Tract Court, NorthWest, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2015 arising out of F.I.R No. 293 of 2012 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Subhash Place wherein the respondent has been acquitted of the said offence.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 02:39:26

¶13

In the present case, the order of acquittal is primarily based on the fact that the prosecutrix has not been consistent in her versions and has improved her version on every subsequent occasion.

¶14

It is further the opinion of the learned Trial Court that the prosecutrix did not report the incident in question i.e. the accused establishing physical relationship with her, immediately and hence there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. Hence, the learned Trial Court in view of the fact that the prosecutrix failed to give strong and convincing evidence, acquitted the respondent.

¶15

According to me, prima-facie , the statement of PW-13, i.e. Prosecutrix, has clearly made out the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

¶16

Further, the respondent has been served and despite the repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed.

¶17

For the said reasons, I am inclined to allow the application and the petitioner is granted leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgement dated 03.08.2017.

¶18

CRL. A. /2025 (To be numbered)

¶19