Applicant sought condonation of 995 days' delay in filing an appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC. With no objection from the prosecution or informant, and noting that convicts should have at least one appellate review of conviction, the court condoned the delay and allowed registration of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010034502025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/182/2025
BINOD MAHATO
S/O. RAJESHWAR MAHATO, R/O. PRAGATI PATH, LALGANESH, P/S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:MALATI RAY W/O. RABI KUMAR RAY R/O. JAYDUTTA PRESS LALGANESH P/S. DISPUR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2
Linked Case : EC/0/0
Binod Mahato Pragati Path Lalganesh P.S. Dispur Kamrup (M)
Page No.# 2/5
Assam
VERSUS
The State of Assam Represented by PP Assam 2:Malati Ray Jaydutta Press Lalganesh P.S. Dispur Kamrup (M) Assam -----------Advocate for : DEEPSIKHA DEVI Advocate for : appearing for The State of Assam
Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0
BINOD MAHATO ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS ASSAM
-----------Advocate for : DEEPSIKHA DEVI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
04.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam as well as Ms. B. Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2/informant.
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 995 (nine hundred ninety five) days in preferring the connected criminal appeal, whereby, the applicant intends to impugn the judgment and order dated 29.03.2022, passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) in Sessions Case No. 35/2016.
3. Mr. Biswas, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant submits that he received the brief from the Office of the Legal Services Committee only on 06.02.2025, by which time the limitation period was already over and some more time was necessary for doing the necessary paper works and by that time, the appeal was filed, there was a delay of 995 days. Therefore, he prayed that the same may be condoned.
4. Ms. Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the informant submits that she has no objection to condonation of the delay, if the Court deems it fit to do so.
5. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also
Page No.# 4/5
does not object to the condonation of delay.
6. The applicant herein had faced trial in Sessions Case No.35/2016 under Section 376 IPC and after completion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2022, he was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.3000/- (in default rigorous imprisonment for another 3 months).
7. In a case of conviction, followed by sentence especially of imprisonment, it is necessary from the point of Constitutional values as well as human rights that there should be at least one tier of appeal - which examines the judgment of conviction and sentence. This is also necessary to guard against any possibility of miscarriage of justice, in a matter of life and liberty.
8. Therefore, in such matters of delay condonation arising out of judgments of conviction and sentence of imprisonment - the aspect of delay condonation, perhaps, is to be looked at somewhat differently and liberally - so that, for the delay, the convict is not deprived of having its conviction and sentence examined by at least one Appellate Court.
9. In this case, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent and the Prosecution have, in their usual fairness, submitted their no objection to the condonation of delay.
10. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view and also considering the no objection, the delay of 995 days in filing the criminal appeal is hereby condoned.
Page No.# 5/5
11. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
12. The criminal appeal shall be registered and put up for admission.
13. The Registry shall furnish necessary copies of the appeal documents to the Prosecution as well as to the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the informant.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Should the delay of 995 days in filing a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 376 IPC be condoned?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
BINOD MAHATO
THE STATE OF ASSAM
MALATI RAY
PRANJAL DAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
