Revati Devi versus Raj Kumar & Another Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 25.09.2025 Present: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Legal Aid Counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Cr.MP (M) No.35 of 2025 By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. The applicant has preferred the accompanying appeal, against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.11.2023, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Mandi, Division Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Sessions Trial (POA) No.32 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. versus Raj Kumar. 3. By way of judgment dated 01.11.2023, the learned trial Court has acquitted respondent No.1, from the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCST Act’). 4. Since the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, by way of the present application, the delay of 412 days as occurred in filing the main appeal has been sought to be condoned, mainly, on the ground that after the judgment of acquittal, she has not been informed by the prosecution/State. Thereafter, as per the further case of the applicant, she had inquired about the fate of the case in the month of August, 2024, when respondent No.1-accused , had produced the judgment before the Civil Court for Civil litigation, titled as Raj Kumar versus Revati Devi & Others. Thereafter, she came to know about the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge. 5. The delay has also been sought on the ground that thereafter, she applied for the legal aid and the Legal Aid Counsel was appointed vide letter of appointment dated. 14.11.2024. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. 7. When put to notice, respondent No.1, has contested the application on the ground that the applicant could not explain the delay of 412 days, as occurred, in filing the main appeal, as according to the reply, she was aware about the decision of the case, mainly on the ground that there is no reasonable explanation, for condonation of delay, hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 8. Respondent No.1, has also filed counter affidavit with regard to the fact that applicant Revati Devi has received a sum of Rs.25,000/-, in the month of November, 2019, at the time of registration of the FIR and thereafter, she had received a sum of Rs.50,000/-, in the month of August, 2020. 9. By way of the said affidavit, a futile attempt has been made to impress upon this Court that the applicant was aware about the decision of the case, however, the affidavit is totally silent about the fact that the complainant had ever received any amount of compensation, after decision of the case, i.e. 1.11.2023. 10. It is no longer res integra that while deciding application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal approach has to be adopted by the Court. Moreover, in view of the mandate of Section 15-A of the SCST Act, the complainant is required to be associated in every proceeding of the case. 11. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the delay of 412 days, as occurred, in filing the main appeal, is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 12. Be registered. 13. Before proceeding further, let record of learned trial Court, be requisitioned for 20th November, 2025. (Virender Singh) Judge September 25, 2025 (ps)