MAJURA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused is petitioner in this revision against appellate order confirming his con viction under Section 224 IPC sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months.

(2.) Revision application was to be filed within 90 days. Stamp Reporter pointed out that there is delay of 197 days to condone which application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. Only ground is that petitioner is a poor man who could not know about dismissal of the appeal as he had gone away to Bihar to earn his livelihood and on return to village he contacted his Advocate and knew the result. Said petition having been sworn to by Advocate's Clerk was withdrawn to file a better petition. A fresh petition sworn to by petitioner has been filed on the self same grounds. When the said application came up for orders I was not prima facie satisfied that a sufficient cause has been made out. However, there being substantive sentence against petitioner. I called upon learned counsel to make submission on merits so that being convinced that there is merit either to set aside conviction or to modify the sentence, I shall liberally consider the question of condoning delay and dispose of the revision.

(3.) Petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 224 IPC Allegation against him is that on 27-9-1969, he was arrested in the village Solakudar being involved in murder of father of P.W. 1. After arrest he was kept in custody in the village. At about 8 P.M., petitioner wanted to answer call of nature to make water. So he was taken out to a place at a distance being tied by a rope on his waist by P.W. 5 a constable who was holding one end of the rope. Petitioner untied the rope and escaped from custody. P.W. 5 raised alarm. In spite of search by every body present, whereabouts of petitioner could not be traced out and he could not be apprehended. P.W. 5 lodged FIR and after investigation, petitioner was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 224 IPC.