Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2224 (ALL)

Sona Devi v. State of U. P.

2014-07-28

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, UMA NATH SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. We have heard submissions of both the sides, perused delay condonation application and supporting affidavit. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that delay occasioned in filing the appeal was beyond control of the applicant. The applicant being Pardanasheen lady is not aware of the proceedings of the Court and she could not gather information with regard to any appeal being filed by the Government against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2005. When she made query from the High Court, she came to know that no appeal has been filed by the Government challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2005. Further submitted that the said judgment is already referred to State Government for appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal has been filed by the complainant-applicant at this stage. 3. Admittedly, this delay condonation application has been moved through counsel. In the prayer clause, there is no mention of any description of the impugned judgment or sessions trial concerned. 4. The very cause shown for delay is stated in para 6 of the affidavit to the effect that brother-in-law of deponent was first informant in the impugned judgment and he was murdered and this frightened her family and she did not make any query. It was only when opposite party no.2 Daddu Pandey @ Rakesh Pandey was convicted in another case on 31.07.2012 that she preferred appeal and filed delay condonation application. 5. This shows that the applicant was well aware of the right of appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 but it was her own conception that the State Government will file an appeal against the impugned judgment which really caused delay, is not satisfactory explanation whereas delay condonation application has been moved beyond limitation period at a delay of 2432 days. 6. The reason assigned due to terror of opposite party no.2 cannot be accepted for the reason that the very judgment dated 31.07.2012 must have been pronounced after testimony being adduced by and on behalf of the applicant side in the concerned sessions trial. Then theory of continued terror ipso facto looses significance. 7. We are conscious of the fact that the applicant is not required to explain day-by-day delay but the applicant is required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause which prevented him/her from preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment. 8. Then theory of continued terror ipso facto looses significance. 7. We are conscious of the fact that the applicant is not required to explain day-by-day delay but the applicant is required to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause which prevented him/her from preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment. 8. In this case at hand, we do not find any satisfactory explanation and the delay occasioned is prima facie deliberate outcome of peculiar thinking of the applicant herself. She cannot take advantage of her own thinking for the reasons aforesaid. We do not find any force in the accompanying affidavit to the delay condonation application. The cause of delay is not satisfactorily explained. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the appeal too is dismissed on the ground of laches. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.