I.A.(Crl.)/668/2025 PRASANTA BORA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA
Outcome
Allowed
Resultantly, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay twenty days in
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Resultantly, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay twenty days in preferring the connected appeal.
Judgment
2:JITU SAIKIA SON OF SRI LATE BIPIN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF NO 2 MORAJAN NAOJAN P/S. SARUPATHAR DIST. GOLAGHAT PIN-785601 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S KHATANIAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Date : 224.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] ORDER Heard Ms. S. Khataniar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam. Page No. 2/3
The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of twenty days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal [Jail] no. 5326/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 to assail a Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case no. 25/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months.
We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application.
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 showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of twenty days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, interest of justice will be better sub- served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay.
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 accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying appeal.
Operative part
Resultantly, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay twenty days in preferring the connected appeal.
The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. Page No. 3/3 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay twenty days in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.