Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010111492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/595/2025 RINTU PATOR SON OF SRI PULIN PATOR, RO VILLAGE RAHA TUPAKUCHI, P.S. RAHA, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM, IN DISTRICT JAIL, MORIGAON VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:RATNESWAR BHARALI SON OF LATE LANKESWAR BHARALI RO VILLAGE PATRABORI P.S. DHARAMTUL P.O. PATRABORI DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI, FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 09-06-2025 [M. Choudhury, J] Heard A. Gogoi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Page No.# 2/3 Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The accompanying criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Oder dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’] in POCSO Case no. 18 of 2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376[2]/366, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Section 376[2], IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and for the offence under Section 366, IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 thereof. 4. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after effecting service of notice on the victim. 5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this Page No.# 3/3 application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 23 days showing sufficient cause. 6. We are also of the considered view that, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits. The issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant is dispensed with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2/informant is to be ensured and the opposite party no. 2/informant would be heard, if the opposite party no. 2/informant enters appearance after service of notice. 7. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring the connected appeal. 8. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant