SABITRI BHUNYA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned lawyer for the appellant/applicant submits that there is a delay of over 1000 days in preferring the appeal. Reason for the delay is attributed to the penurious condition of the appellant/applicant. It is further submitted she was unaware of her right to get free legal assistance through Legal Service authorities. Only upon being made aware of such right, she filed the appeal. It is also submitted that she is an injured eyewitness and the victim in the present case.

(2.) Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5/acquitted accused persons submits the delay has not been adequately explained. He also draws our attention to the fact that the explanation of the delay as set out in Paragraph 10 of the application has not been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the appellant/applicant.

(3.) We have considered the materials on record. Appellant/applicant is the injured eye-witness. Hence, she is a 'victim' as defined under Sec. 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, there is a substantial delay of over three years in taking out the petition of appeal. However, it appears the appellant was in a penurious state and being unaware with regard to her right to receive free legal aid through the Legal Service Authorities was unable to prefer the appeal within time. Notwithstanding passage of over four decades since the promulgation of the Legal Services Act, 1987, litigants, like the appellant/applicant remain unaware of their right to legal aid for access to justice. Purpose of rendering free legal aid to indigent persons is to ensure that the right to access to justice comes to fruition and does not remain a dead letter of law.