Allowed¶35

Chakra Sahu v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2025I.A.(Crl.)/159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

I.A.(Crl.)/159/2025, Gauhati High Court, order dated 04.06.2025: application under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 by Chakra Sahu allowed condoning 54 days' delay in preferring criminal appeal under Section 415(2), BNSS 2023 against conviction under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act, 2012 and sentence of 20 years' RI plus Rs.10,000/- fine (Special Judge, Jorhat, Special Case no. 34/2023, Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2024); sufficient cause found; connected appeal to be heard on merits and listed in admission column; informant (respondent no. 2) to be heard if she enters appearance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 54 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column. ¶35

Chakra Sahu Vs the State of Assam — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 54 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-appellant showed sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 54 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal, as sought under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

On the statements and averments in the application, the applicant-appellant has been able to make out a case showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 54 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant-appellant stands convicted under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, the interest of justice will be better subserved if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the delay of 54 days.

¶32

Key takeaways

At the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard if she enters appearance after service of notice.ratio¶32
The instant application is allowed, condoning the delay of 54 days in preferring the connected appeal.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria, JJ.), I.A.(Crl.)/159/2025, order dated 04.06.2025 - Condonation of delay. Chakra Sahu (applicant-appellant), convicted by Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2024 of the learned Special Judge, Jorhat in Special Case no. 34/2023 under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced, in view of Section 42, POCSO Act, to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations under Section 376(3) IPC, applied under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 to condone 54 days' delay in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Held: on the averments (case papers forwarded from Central Jail, Jorhat in November 2024 for legal aid; Legal Aid Counsel appointed by the Gauhati High Court Legal Service Committee on 17.12.2024), sufficient cause was shown; as the interest of justice would be better subserved by hearing the appeal on merits, the delay of 54 days was condoned and the application allowed; the connected appeal was directed to be registered and listed in the admission column; the opposite party-respondent no. 2 (informant), duly served but absent, would be heard at the appellate stage if she entered appearance after notice.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010029892025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/159/2025

¶6

CHAKRA SAHU

¶7

S/O. LT. ARKITA SAHU, RESIDENT OF GABHARU TEA ESTATE, LINE NO 7, P/S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR

¶10

2:ARATI NAYAK W/O. SRI KRISHNA NAYAK R/O. GABHARU PARBAT T.E LINE NO. 8 P/S. TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0

¶14

SRI CHAKRA SAHU RESIDENT OF GABHARU TEA ESTATE LINE NO 7 TEOK

Page No.# 2/4

JORHAT ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR

¶19

2:SMT ARATI NAYAK RESIDENT OF GABHARU PARBAT TEOK JORHAT ASSAM -----------Advocate for : BEGUM ROUSHAN ARA SULTANA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 04.06.2025

¶23

[M. Choudhury, J]

¶24

Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

¶25

As per Order dated 27.05.2025 of the Lawazima Court, service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant is complete. Despite service of notice, none has appeared till date on behalf of the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant.

¶26

The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 54 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The accompanying criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Jorhat [‘the Special Court’, for short] in Special

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

Case no. 34/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2024, the learned Special Court has convicted the applicant-appellant for the offence under Section 376 [3] of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] as well as under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act , 2012. In view of Section 42, POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulations, under Section 376 [3], IPC.

¶29

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application. It is noticed that after passing of the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence on 30.09.2024, the case papers were forwarded from the authorities in the Central Jail, Jorhat in November, 2024 for extending legal aid and thereafter, the Gauhati High Court Legal Service Committee had appointed the Legal Aid Counsel on 17.12.2024.

¶30

Ms. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulations, under Section 376 [3], IPC, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits.

¶31

On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to made out a case for showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 54 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.

¶32

We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 376 [3], IPC, as well as under Section 4 , POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulations, under Section 376 [3], IPC, interest of justice will be better subserved if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay of 54 days. At the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

of notice.

¶35

For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of 54 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶36

The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same in the admission column.

¶37

JUDGE JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Chakra Sahu v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakra Sahu v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Amirat Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Shri Bharat Bora Vs State of Assam

Shri Bharat Bora Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Babul Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Isajul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Bichitra Ruhi Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.