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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the accompanying criminal appeal and list it in the admission column.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-appellant has shown sufficient cause explaining the delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal, warranting its condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 30 days, showing sufficient cause, and the delay is therefore condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 15 years under Section 4, POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 IPC, the interest of justice will be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay of thirty days; the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard in the appeal if she enters appearance after service of notice.

Key takeaways

The instant application is allowed, condoning the delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal; the Registry is to register the accompanying criminal appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, I.A.(Crl.)/313/2025, order dated 11.06.2025 (Manish Choudhury, J., authoring for the Bench with Mitali Thakuria, J.) allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by Topan Doley, condoning a 30-day delay in preferring his accompanying criminal appeal against the Judgment dated 18.12.2024 and Order of Sentence dated 21.12.2024 of the learned Special Judge [POCSO], Golaghat, in Special [POCSO] Case No. 43/2018, whereby he was convicted under Sections 307 and 376 IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 15 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (in view of Section 42, POCSO Act, under Section 4, POCSO Act) and to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Section 307 IPC). The Court found the applicant-appellant had explained the delay showing sufficient cause, and held that, given the long sentences, the interest of justice would be better sub-served by hearing the appeal on merits; respondent no. 2 (informant Aruna Gowala), who had not appeared despite completed service of notice, would be heard if she entered appearance. The Registry was directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010064622025

undefined

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

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/313/2025

TOPAN DOLEY

SON OF HARILOM DOLEY, RESIDENT OF DAINI CHAPORI GAON, P.S. DERGAON, DISTRICT GOLAGHAT, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAUHATI HIGH COURT, ASSAM

2:ARUNA GOWALA WIFE OF SRI BUBUL GOWALA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LEMCHAPANI AMGURI P.S. DERGAON PIN-78561

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. P B BORDOLOI, FOR LEGAL AID

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0

SRI TOPAN DOLEY

SON OF HARILOM DOLE RESIDENT OF DAINI CHAPORI GAON P.S. DERGAON DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GAUHATI HIGH COURT ASSAM

2:SMTI ARUNA GOWALA

WIFE OF SRI BUBUL GOWALA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LEMCHAPANI AMGURI P.S. DERGAON PIN-785614.

Advocate for : MRS. PURNIMA BARUAH BORDOLOI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

BEFORE

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

ORDER

Date : 11.06.2025

[M. Choudhury, J]

Heard Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms.

A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

As per the Order dated 27.05.2025 of the Lawazima Court, service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 is complete.

None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant, despite service of notice, till date.

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal against a Judgment dated 18.12.2024 and an Order of Sentence dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [POCSO] at Golaghat in Special [POCSO] Case no. 43/2018. By the Judgment and the Order of Sentence, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the

Page No.# 3/4

offences under Section 307, Indian Penal Code [IPC], Section 376, IPC and under Section 4, 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 of 15 [fifteen] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, with default stipulation, under Section 4, POCSO Act. For the offence under Section 307, IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, with default stipulation.

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the application, more particularly, Paragraph – 2 thereof.

Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 [fifteen] years under Section 42, POCSO Act and undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years under Section 307 IPC, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits. Service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2 has been duly effected upon the respondent no. 2. Yet, the respondent no. 2 has not entered appearance to submit any objection regarding delay.

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 explain the period of delay of 30 days showing sufficient cause.

We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 [fifteen] years under Section 4, POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years under Section 307 IPC, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay of thirty days. The opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard in the accompanying criminal appeal, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service of notice.

Page No.# 4/4

For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of 30 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.

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

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant