Rintu Pator Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rintu Pator Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 23 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and list it in the admission column; issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant dispensed with at this stage, to be ensured at the appeal-hearing stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 23 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 should be condoned 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 23 days showing sufficient cause.

Ratio / Principle

Interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits.

Key takeaways

Issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant is dispensed with at this stage; service of notice upon the informant is to be ensured at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, and the informant would be heard if he enters appearance after service.ratio¶24
The instant application is allowed, condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring the connected appeal.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria), by order dated 09-06-2025 in I.A.(Crl.)/595/2025, allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and condoned a 23-day delay in preferring a criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case no. 18 of 2019, whereby the applicant was convicted under Sections 376(2)/366 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 376(2) IPC, and 10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (default 6 months' RI) under Section 366 IPC, the sentences running concurrently. Finding the delay sufficiently explained and holding that the interest of justice would be better served by hearing the appeal on merits, the Court dispensed with issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant at this stage, directing that notice be effected and the informant heard when the connected appeal is taken up; the Registry was directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010111492025

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

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/595/2025

RINTU PATOR

SON OF SRI PULIN PATOR, RO VILLAGE RAHA TUPAKUCHI, P.S. RAHA, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM, IN DISTRICT JAIL, MORIGAON

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.

2:RATNESWAR BHARALI SON OF LATE LANKESWAR BHARALI RO VILLAGE PATRABORI P.S. DHARAMTUL P.O. PATRABORI DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78210

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI, FOR LEGAL AID

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

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

ORDER

Date : 09-06-2025 [M. Choudhury, J]

Heard A. Gogoi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and

Page No.# 2/3

Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam.

The instant application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The accompanying criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Oder dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’] in POCSO Case no. 18 of 2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376[2]/366, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Section 376[2], IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and for the offence under Section 366, IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 thereof.

Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after effecting service of notice on the victim.

On having gone through the statements and averments made in this

Page No.# 3/3

application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 23 days showing sufficient cause.

We are also of the considered view that, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits. The issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant is dispensed with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2/informant is to be ensured and the opposite party no. 2/informant would be heard, if the opposite party no. 2/informant enters appearance after service of notice.

For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring the connected appeal.

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

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant