Panye Tayo v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

ORDER

21.12.2023 [Robin Phukan, J.]

Heard Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶2In this application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the connected appeal, against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila in Bomdila Sessions Case [POCSO] C/No.10/2021, corresponding to Seppa Women Police Station Case No. 10/2019, under Sections 376/363 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶3It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated

14.09.2023, the learned court below has convicted the applicant under Sections 376/363 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 366 of the IPC and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶4Mr. Topu, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the judgment was pronounced by the learned court below on 14.09.2023, the sentenced was pronounced on 18.09.2023, and thereafter, the applicant had applied for certified copy and obtained the certified copy on 28.11.2023, and therefore, the appeal could not be preferred in time. Mr. Topu further submits that the said delay is not intentional but circumstantial and therefore, it is contended to condone the same. Page No.# 3/3

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 35 days and filing the connected criminal appeal.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record.

¶7Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation forthcoming for delay of 35 days, this Court is of the view that the same has been sufficiently explained and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 35 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal.

¶8In terms of above, this IA stands disposed of.

¶9In view of above, it is provided that the Registry shall register the appeal and list the same before this Court.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040017532023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/70/2023 Panye Tayo S/o Panye Kato, residence of Aniya Colony, P/O and P/S Nirjuli, District papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. Mobile No. 8798543232 VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Others represented by Public Posecutor, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, Yupia/ 2:Baragi Brah Age: 0 Occupation : S/O late Tagam Brah Residence of the villlage Rebang P/O Pijrang P/S Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Miss Rungfe Brah Age: 0 Occupation : D/O Late Tagam Brah Presently residing at Naharlgun P/O and P/S Naharlagun District Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tambo Tamin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE