Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020006392025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/32/2025 SHRI NUZOTA SHIJOH S/O THUVOSOYI SHIJOH, CHOZU BASA VILLAGE, PHEKL NAGALAND-797108 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:SMTI SATALU SAPU (COMPLAINANT) WIFE OF SULUNEYI LERIE NEAR HELIPAD KOHIMA NAGALAND-79700 Advocate for the Petitioner : ARENLONG, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/6/2025 SHRI NUZOTA SHIJOH S/O THUVOSOYI SHIJOH CHOZU BASA VILLAGE PHEKL NAGALAND-797108 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 2/4 2:SMTI SATALU SAPU (COMPLAINANT) WIFE OF SULUNEYI LERIE NEAR HELIPAD KOHIMA NAGALAND-797001 ------------ Advocate for : ARENLONG Advocate for : P.P NAGALAND appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 03-12-2025 Heard Shri Arenlong, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri E. Thiba Phom, learned PP for the State. The learned PP has placed before this Court a communication dated 27.11.2025 issued by the Officer-in- Charge, Women Police Station, Phek, Nagaland on the aspect of service of notice upon the respondent no. 2. The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay of 171 days in preferring the connected appeal. By the impugned judgement and order dated 28.03.2025, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced under the provisions of the POCSO Act in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 07/2024 in GR No. 21/2024 Women PS Phek Case No. 02/2024. Page No.# 3/4 Shri Arenlong, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to reasons beyond his control, the delay in filing the connected appeal has occasioned. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the petition. Shri. E. Thiba Phom, learned PP for the state has not stringently objected to the prayer for condonation of delay and has submitted that he would rather object on the merits of the case. As noted above, the respondent no. 2 has been served. An application for condonation of delay is required to be considered in a pragmatic and justice oriented manner, more so when the impugned order is regarding the conviction and sentence of the applicant. A person cannot be left remediless to prefer an appeal against such an order of conviction and sentence and this Court is satisfied with the reasons projected for the delay in approaching the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the cause shown for condoning the delay is made out. The delay of 171 days in preferring the connected appeal is accordingly condoned. Page No.# 4/4 The interlocutory application stands allowed. Let the connected appeal be listed for admission in the next week. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant