Dismissed

Kunu Pujhari v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2023CRLA/929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Leave to Appeal benched at Cuttack, the High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against a conviction and life imprisonment sentence under S. 302/34 IPC, holding that the explanations offered were not satisfactory. Consequently, the underlying write petition was dismissed as time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Criminal Leave to Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Kunu Pujhari Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.929 of 2023

¶2

Kunu Pujhari

¶3

Appellant

¶4

Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Respondent Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA

¶8

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order

No.

04.09.2023

I.A. No.1988 of 2023

¶15

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual / physical) mode.

¶16

2 . This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1235 days (3 years 4 months 20 days) in preferring the Appeal.

¶17

3 . Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is in custody for all these years after the verdict. He further submits that on conclusion of the Trial, the Appellant was held guilty of the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2019, passed in Criminal Trial No.27 of 2017(Sessions) and was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC. It is also submitted that the Appellant being in custody, remained under a bona fide impression that appeal has been preferred, but on verification, he could know that no appeal has been preferred against the

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

impugned judgment. He submits that the delay in filing the Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, he urged for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.

¶21

4 . Learned counsel for the State opposed the move citing the period of delay for more than half a decade and contending the explanation to be too casual and unacceptable for a moment. 5 . The submissions in support of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, are found to be per se not acceptable and we are not in a position to say that the explanations as are offered for such long delay of three (3) years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days in filing the Appeal are satisfactory. There surfaces no sufficient cause to condone the delay. In fact, the Appellant is found to have sat over the matter for a long time by not filing the Appeal and during the period, he has also not availed of the opportunities of seeking any such assistance as readily available in the jail. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the long delay in filing the Appeal.

¶22

6 . The I.A. is dismissed.

¶23

7 . Consequently, the CRLA is dismissed being barred by limitation.

¶24

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶25

Judge Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Gitanjali Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2023 14:23:02

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Kunu Pujhari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunu Pujhari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitrasen Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Raisingh Munda Vs State of Orissa

Dhiren Dalai Vs State of Orissa

Banthu @ Biranchi Swain Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Bina@Binod Sahoo Vs State of Orissa