Allowed¶30

Bichitra Ruhi Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC5 Jun 2025I.A.(Crl.)/739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 423 days delay; Section 415 BNSS 2023 criminal appeal; Section 6 POCSO Act conviction; Section 376 [3] IPC; Section 366 IPC; Section 42 POCSO Act; Special [POCSO] Case no. 37/2022; Additional Special Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO] Sivasagar; father's death 27.07.2023; financial difficulties; no objection by State and informant; Article 21 liberty; substantial justice paramount; liberal approach; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Crl.)/739/2024; order dated 06.06.2025; appeal to be registered and listed in admission column.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column. ¶30

Bichitra Ruhi Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal should be condoned, i.e., whether the applicant-appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay.

¶28

Court's answer

Having regard to the averments in the application and the reason shown, the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 423 days by showing sufficient cause.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after condoning the delay of 423 days.

¶28

Key takeaways

It was emphasised that substantial justice is paramount and pivotal, technical considerations should not be given undue emphasis, no presumption attaches to deliberate causation of delay, a liberal approach is to be followed absent gross negligence, and the conviction connects with the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Stated passively as points 'emphasised'; whether adopted as the Court's own conclusion is not explicit.)¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria, JJ.) allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 condoning a delay of 423 days in preferring a criminal appeal under Section 415, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appeal challenges a Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2023 of the Additional Special Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Sivasagar in Special [POCSO] Case no. 37/2022, convicting the applicant under Section 6, POCSO Act (rigorous imprisonment 20 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-) and under Sections 376 [3] and 366, IPC (rigorous imprisonment 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-), sentences concurrent. Sufficient cause: the applicant's father died on 27.07.2023, occasioning financial difficulties; both opposite parties raised no objection to condonation. The Court held the interest of justice better sub-served in hearing on merits an appeal against a 20-year sentence, noting the emphasis on substantial justice being paramount and the connection of conviction with Article 21 liberty. Registry directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010107792024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶5

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

¶6

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/739/2024

¶7

BICHITRA RUHI DAS S/O LATE BIPUL RUHI DAS, BETBARI NO- 2 KONWAR GAON, P.S. AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

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

¶10

2:PURNIMA KARMAKAR W/O RAJU KARMAKAR

¶11

VILL.- BETBARI 2 NO. KONWAR GAON P.S. AND DIST.- SIVASAGAR

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS S BARPUJARI,MS. A LALA,MRS R BEGUM

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M BARMAN, LEGAL AID COUNSEL, R2

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 06.06.2025

¶18

[M. Choudhury, J]

¶19

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant; Mr. R.R. Kaushik,

¶20

Page No.# 2/3

¶21

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant.

¶22

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal which is yet to be numbered and registered.

¶23

The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred under Section 415, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to assail a Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Special Judge – cum – Special Judge [POCSO], Sivasagar [‘the Special Court’, for short] in Special [POCSO] Case no. 37/2022. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2023, the learned Special Court has convicted the applicant-appellant for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 as well as under Section 376 [3] of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and also under Section 366, IPC. 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 6, POCSO Act. The applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 [ten] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulations, under Section 366, IPC. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

¶24

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, in Paragraphs – 6 & 7 thereof. It is averred that after the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, the applicant has lost his father as his father breathed his last on 27.07.2023. It is stated that due to demise of his father, the applicant-appellant ran into financial difficulties, which has resulted in preferring the appeal with delay.

¶25

Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam and Ms. Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant have fairly submitted that they have no objection if the period of delay is condoned and the

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

criminal appeal is heard on merits.

¶28

Having regard to the statements and averments made in the instant application and the reason shown for delay, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay showing sufficient cause. We are of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay of 423 days.

¶29

It has been emphasized that substantial justice being paramount and pivotal, the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis and no presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay. It is further emphasized that a liberal approach has to be followed unless there is gross negligence on the part of the applicant-appellant. The conviction of the applicant-appellant also has a connection with the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶30

In view of the above, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed.

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Bichitra Ruhi Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bichitra Ruhi Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Isajul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Babul Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Chakra Sahu Vs the State of Assam

Perish Kutum @ Gavaskar Vs the State of Assam

Rohit Gatowar Vs the State of Assam and Anr. .

Sadek Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.