2025:HHC:31293 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 737 of 2025 Reserved on : 09.09.2025 Decided on : 12.09.2025 Soma Devi …Applicant Versus Deena Nath & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the applicant       : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents  : Dr. Jeevan   Lal   Sharma   &   Mr. Tek Chand   Sharma,   Advocates,   for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Soma   Devi   has   filed   accompanying appeal   under   Section   413   of   the   Bharatiya  Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), 2 2025:HHC:31293 against the judgment dated 10.11.2023, titled as ‘Dina Nath Vs State of H.P. & Ors.’, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’), whereby, the learned First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2022/18.07.2022, passed by learned Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Sarkaghat,   District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’). 2. Vide judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2022, the   learned   trial   Court   has   convicted   respondent   Deena Nath, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120­B of Indian Penal Code and vide   order   of   sentence,   dated   18.07.2022,   has  sentenced him as under:­ (i) Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to   pay   fine   of   Rs. 10,000/­   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   467   of   IPC   and   in default  of payment of fine, to  further undergo simple imprisonment for two months; (ii) Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/­ for the offence punishable   under   Section   468   of   IPC   and   in default  of payment of fine, to  further undergo 3 2025:HHC:31293 simple imprisonment for one month; (iii) Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/­ for the offence punishable   under   Section   471   of   IPC   and   in default  of payment of fine, to  further undergo simple imprisonment for one month; (iv) Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to   pay   fine   of   Rs. 10,000/­   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   420   of   IPC   and   in default  of payment of fine, to  further undergo simple imprisonment for two months; The   trial   Court   has   also   ordered   that   all   the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Against   the   said   judgment   of   conviction   and order of sentence, respondent Deena Nath had preferred an appeal  before the learned  First  Appellate  Court  and vide judgment dated 10.11.2023, his appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.   13   of   2022,   has   been   accepted   and   he   has   been acquitted for the offences, for which, he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. 4. Since,   the   appeal   has   been   filed   after   the prescribed   period   of   limitation,   as   such,   the   present application has been filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before this Court. As per the application, there is delay   of   one   year   and   109   days   in   preferring   the 4 2025:HHC:31293 accompanying   appeal. As   such,   the   application   under Section 5 of Limitation Act, has been filed. 5. As   per   the   calculation   made   by   the   Registry, appeal is barred by one year, four months and 18 days. The delay in preferring the appeal has been sought mainly on the   ground  that   the  husband  of  the   applicant,   preferred Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2024, before this Court against the   judgment   of   acquittal   by   the   learned   First   Appellate Court. However, said appeal has been disposed of by this Court on 09.08.2024, by holding that the appeal, at the instance of informant is not maintainable, as, he does not fall within the definition of the victim. 6. The said appeal was disposed of on 09.08.2024, and thereafter the husband of the applicant has also filed the   SLP   (Criminal)   Diary   No.   54051   of   2024,   before   the Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   which   was   also   dismissed   on 02.01.2025. 7. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   it   has   been pleaded that the delay is due to the advice given to them by their Counsel, who had filed the previous appeal, at the 5 2025:HHC:31293 instance of informant. 8. Apart from this, it has also been prayed that she is an old lady and suffering from aged related diseases. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay by allowing the application. The application has duly been supported by the affidavit of the applicant. 10. When put to notice, the State has filed the reply by denying the factual position. 11. It   is   the   specific   stand   of   the   State   that   the matter was examined up to the level of District Magistrate, Mandi in consultation with the Law Department and it was found that the matter is not required to be assailed before the Higher Court, after passing of the judgment of acquittal by the learned First Appellate Court. 12. The grounds, upon which, the prayer has been made to condone the delay, have also been controverted. 13. In   this   case,   respondent   Deena   Nath   was convicted   by   the   learned   trial   Court   and   sentenced,   as referred to above. Thereafter, he had preferred an appeal 6 2025:HHC:31293 before the learned First Appellate Court, where his appeal has   been   allowed   and   he   has   been   acquitted   from   the offences, for which he had been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. 14. Against   that   judgment,   admittedly   appeal   was filed   by   Prem   Singh,   who   is   not   only   husband   of   the applicant Soma Devi, but he was the person, who had put the   criminal   machinery   into   motion,   by   moving   the complaint before the police on 15.07.2024. 15. In this case, softly a plea has been taken that due to the advice given by the Counsel of the applicant, the appeal  was preferred  on behalf of the complainant  Prem Singh, before this Court, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2024, which is held to be not maintainable by this Court and thereafter, complainant Prem Singh had preferred the SLP   before   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   which   was   also dismissed. 16. Admittedly, the complainant, who is the husband of the applicant, who falls within the definition of victim, had assailed the judgment of acquittal by the learned First 7 2025:HHC:31293 Appellate Court and when his appeal has been held to be not maintainable by this Court, thereafter he had preferred the SLP, which was also dismissed. 17. In such situation, in view of the low legal literacy of Indian masses, the plea taken by the applicant qua the wrong legal advice given to the applicant, as well as, to her husband, cannot be brushed aside, at this stage, as the bonafide   of   husband   and   wife   (complainant   and   victim) cannot be doubted. 18. Admittedly, Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2024 was filed in the year 2024 and thereafter, SLP has also been preferred   before   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   which   was dismissed on 02.01.2025. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve by not preferring the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, had she been properly adviced by her Counsel. Situation would have been otherwise had the appeal been not preferred by her husband. The applicant has given her age in the affidavit as 75 years. 19. Admittedly,   the   applicant,   as   well   as,   her 8 2025:HHC:31293 husband are senior citizens and for the rural masses, the advice of their Counsel is gospel truth for them. As such, the bonafide of the applicant cannot be doubted mainly on the ground that the earlier appeal against acquittal was filed by her husband, which was held to be not maintainable. Moreover, there is nothing  on the record to  demonstrate about the object that the applicant is going to achieve by not preferring the appeal herself, had she been properly adviced by her Counsel. 20. Perusal of the record also shows that during the pendency of the trial, informant Prem Singh (husband of the applicant) had preferred Cr.MMO No. 01 of 2021, to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial, at the earliest, by submitting that he (complainant) is 82 years of the age. The said petition was allowed by this Court by passing the following orders:­ “2. Though this Court has no reason to believe that   learned   Trial   Court   shall   not   make   any endeavour   to   have   the   trial   concluded   as expeditiously as possible, subject to appropriate assistance being rendered to it by the parties, yet this petition is disposed of with the observation that the factum of the complainant being 82 years 9 2025:HHC:31293 old   be   taken   into   consideration   by   the   learned Trial Court and an endeavour be made to have the trial expedited. Copy dasti.” 21. When the complainant, who is husband of the applicant,   was   pursuing   the   matter,   then   naturally   the applicant   remained   under   bonafide   belief   that   he   is   the person, who could assail the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view   that   the   applicant   is   able   to   make   out   a   case   for condonation   of   delay. Consequently,   the   application   for condonation of delay is allowed by condoning the delay in filing the accompanying appeal. The application is disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. ______ of 2025. Be registered. List for consideration, on 22.09.2025. (Virender Singh) Judge 12th September, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)