BAIJ NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant -Baij Nath son of Devi Saran against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5, Deoria, in Special Session Trial No. 114 of 2011, arising out of case crime no. 147 of 2000, registered under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.T./S.C. Act against Rudal Yadav son of Indrasan Yadav and Sections 363, 366, 376, 352 and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act , against Tullu Yadav Police Station Tarkulwa District Deoria, respectively.

(2.) SINCE the arguments have been advanced collectively, firstly in support of delay condonation application and secondly on merit of the case, on behalf of the appellants and counter reply on behalf of respondents, therefore, both the issues are being dealt with together by this common order. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) ON perusal of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application it becomes apparent that the grounds urged on the point of delay in filing the instant appeal are vague and unreasonable for the reason that the appellant kept on waiting for filing of the appeal under wrong impression that the D.G.C. (Crl.) will ensure filing of appeal against impugned judgment of acquittal, whereas no such appeal was managed to be filed by the D.G.C.(Crl.). Thereafter, on 22.2.2011 the applicant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 14.7.2010. The applicant obtained the certified copy of the judgment on 16th March, 2011 and was thinking of filing of appeal when he fell ill seriously. He consulted doctor who use to give medicine without providing any formal medical prescription. There is no whisper about the nature of disease/ ailment either in the grounds taken by the appellant pertaining to delay in filing of the appeal or at the time of argument of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant could not disclose the nature of disease or ailment which prevented the applicant from filing the appeal when he obtained copy of the impugned judgment on 16th March, 2011. Thus, the submission regarding the illness also appears to be unreasonable and perfunctory one just in order to impress upon the Court that there was some reasonable cause for the delay. However, we do not find both the reasons advanced for condonation of delay to be just and satisfactory and it does not reasonably explains the delay to be treated to be beyond control of the appellant. However it shows deliberate laches on the part of the appellant. The appellant miserably failed to furnish satisfactorily explanation that the delay occurred was beyond his control. Therefore, the delay condonation application lacks substance and is liable to be rejected.