Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010090952025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/447/2025 In Crl. A.(J)/3782/2025 SRI GIRISH GOGOI S/O LT. KHAGESWAR GOGOI, R/O NATUN LUNPURIA GAON, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS DIPANJALI BORPUJARI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 SRI GIRISH GOGOI S/O-LT. KHAGEWAR GOGOI R/O-NATUN LUNPURIA GAON P.S-TEOK DIST-GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MRS DIPANJALI BORPUJARI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 09-05-2025 (S. K. Medhi, J) Heard Ms. D. Borpujari, learned Legal Aid Counsel, who has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 41 days in preferring the connected appeal. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jorhat, Assam in Sessions Case No. 38 (J-T)/2022 convicting the appellant u/s 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has submitted that the matter has been handled by the High Court Legal Aid Service Committee and the concerned documents had to be procured from the learned Trial Court. By referring to the averments made in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the application, the learned counsel has submitted that the delay had occasioned due to factors which were beyond her control. Ms. S. Jahan, the learned APP has fairly submitted that the appeal being Page No.# 3/3 against an order of conviction and sentence she would not have serious objection for condonation of delay and would rather oppose the appeal on merits. It is a settled position of law that while adjudicating an application for condonation of delay, a pragmatic and justice oriented approach is to be taken. We have also perused the grounds cited for delay of 41 days which is found to be satisfactory and the delay itself does not appear to be inordinate. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay of 41 days is required to be condoned which we accordingly do. IA accordingly stands allowed. The appeal may accordingly be registered and listed for admission after a week. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant