J.P. Singh, J.— 1. The respondents-Lal Chand and Suresh Chander were tried on the Charge of Murder of Shelo Devi, respondent No. 2's wife, by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, who, appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defense during trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove complete chain of circumstances to connect the respondents with the commission of the offence. He, accordingly recorded their acquittal vide judgment and order dated 14.06.2012. 2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, the State is in Appeal therea gainst. 3. Along with its Memo of Appeal, it has moved Motion seeking Condonation of 65 days' delay in filing the Appeal. The reasons projected by the State to seek Condonation of delay, as they so appear in Condl(Cr.) No. 85/2012 are these:- 2. That after the judgment was announced, an application for issuance of certified copy of the judgment was filed on 09-08-2012 which was issued on 11-08-2012. 3. That thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Law Department for the grant of sanction letter. It is submitted that the matter was considered in the Law Department at various levels and the sanction was accorded for filing appeal vide Govt. Order No. 3494-LD(ACQ) of 2012 dated 01-10-2012. 4. That the sanction was forwarded to the concerned for filing the acquittal appeal from Srinagar where the move offices are at the relevant time. 5. That the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua was contacted for providing requisite assistance for filing an appeal on 09-10-2012 and after getting the requisite information, an appeal is being drafted and filed without any further delay.".... 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions, perused the Motion moved by the State and the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua whereby respondents were acquitted. 5. Delay in filing Appeal after the statutory period of limitation prescribed therefor cannot be condoned as a matter of course, in that, it may deprive the other party of the right accrued to it because of non-filing of the Appeal within the prescribed period. The party seeking Condonation of delay is, therefore, required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Sufficient cause maybe considered only if the circumstances that disabled it in filing Appeal within time were spelt out. The party seeking Condonation of delay is, therefore, required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay. Sufficient cause maybe considered only if the circumstances that disabled it in filing Appeal within time were spelt out. The party is further required to indicate that all requisite that was required was diligently so done but the Appeal could not be so filed for reasons beyond its control. 6. Considered in the light of the above legal position, the State's Motion may not deserve allowance, for, it does not indicate any diligent effort made by the State functionaries to file Appeal within prescribed period as also the circumstances or factors that disabled it in filing it within time. 7. The stereotype Motion moved by the State, which we usually find in many State Appeals, does not, therefore, satisfy us. 8. We would have rejected the State's Motion on the above plea finding it to be cryptic and bereft of requisite facts demonstrating its disability to file Appeal within time but we considered it appropriate to examine the trial Court's judgment lest the State's default may not result in injustice. 9. After going through the judgment of the trial Court, we find that the respondents' acquittal is well-merited, in that, the prosecution has failed to prove any incriminating circumstance against the respondents much-less a complete chain of circumstances that would connect respondents with the murder of Shelo Devi. The trial Court has discussed in detail the evidence produced by the prosecution and appreciated it in the light of the legal position that the prosecution is required to prove such circumstances which would prove that it was only the accused and accused alone, who were responsible for murder. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in the present case have not been proved by the witnesses produced by it. Not only this, even the brother of the deceased has negatived the prosecution story saying that the deceased had gone missing from her parental house and not from the house of her husband. 10. For all what has been said above, we do not find the State to have made out any case for Condoning the delay in filing Appeal. 11. Motion moved by the State is, accordingly, dismissed along with Cr. Acq. Appeal No. 98/2012.