Sangita Sukhdev Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Ms. Farheen Qureshi i/b Mr. Murtaza M. Nazmi for Applicant. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.S.OKA & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2012 P.C.:

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2 has opposed this application by submitting that there is no sufficient cause.

The applicant is the victim of the offence who has preferred an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for challenging the acquittal of second respondent - accused for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 376, 417 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. The delay is of one year and 113 days. In the additional affidavit, applicant had disclosed that she was aware of the impugned judgment and order on the date of the order itself. She has stated that after making the enquiry with the well wishers, she was told to approach to this court. As she was not in a position to engage an advocate, she addressed a representation to Hon’ble Chief Justice of this court. The High Court Legal Service Committee passed an order on 12th August, 2010 appointing an advocate to espouse her cause. By letter dated 27th August, 2010 the said advocate called upon the applicant to furnish certain documents. Thereafter there is reference made to the correspondence with the Sessions Court and High Court Legal Service Committee. After necessary documents were submitted to the advocate, the appeal has been preferred.

Considering the facts disclosed in the said additional affidavit, we find that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay in preferring the appeal at the instance of the victim of the offence.

Hence, we allow the application.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ( A. S. OKA, J. ) 3 4