Poonam Sharma versus Pawan Kumar & Another Cr. Appeal No. of 2025 22.07.2025 Present: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Cr.MP (M) No.678 of 2025. Applicant Poonam Sharma, the unfortunate mother of Sourabh Matriak, who had allegedly lost his life in the accident, allegedly caused by respondent No.1, has preferred the accompanying appeal, against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court’). By way of judgment of acquittal dated 29.02.2024, the learned trial Court had acquitted respondent No.1, from the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC’), arising out of the FIR No.129 of 2021, dated 4.12.2021, registered with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla. Since the applicant had preferred the accompanying appeal, in the capacity of ‘victim’, as defined in Section 2(y) of BNSS, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed for condonation of delay, which, as per the report of the Registry, is 1 year and 22 days, on the ground that after passing of the judgment of acquittal, the applicant did not receive any intimation from the Deputy Commissioner and District Attorney Shimla, to the effect as to whether any criminal appeal has been preferred before this Court or not. Thereafter, by issuing representation on 14.04.2024, the applicant had reminded the Deputy Commissioner, with regard to filing of the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court. When, no heed was paid, reminder was given on 2.10.2024. Apart from this, it has also been pleaded in the application that the applicant, being resident of remote area of Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, was not aware about the technicalities of law and as such, delay in filing the appeal has been occurred. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. When put to notice, respondent No.1, has contested the application, by denying the factual position and reasserting the fact that there is inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. Apart from this, a plea has also been taken that despite having the knowledge of judgment of acquittal, the applicant remained silent and preferred the accompanying appeal, after a period of more than one year. On the basis of the above facts, respondent No.1 has prayed that the application sans merit and the same may kindly be dismissed. Respondent No.2, has neither contested the application, nor, filed any reply. Heard. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that being mother of the deceased, the applicant falls within the definition of ‘victim’ and she has every right to assail the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court. Admittedly, in this case, the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal. By way representation Annexure C-1, and by issuing remainder, Annexure C-2, the applicant had approached to the competent authority with regard to the right of respondent No.2 to prefer appeal against the judgment of acquittal as crime is always against the State. When the State has not preferred any appeal, the applicant has preferred the accompany appeal, along with the present application. In the reply, neither any negligence, nor, inaction is attributed to the applicant. When there is nothing in the reply filed by respondent No.1, about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve, by not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, had she not been prevented to do so, then, the explanation, which has been put forth, in the application, appeals to the judicial conscience of this Court. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Cr. Appeal No. of 2025. Be registered. Admit. Call for the record. Respondent is directed to furnish requisite bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an solemn undertaking to surrender before this Court or before the learned trial Court, in case, the appeal is accepted by this Court. (Virender Singh) Judge July 25, 2025 (ps)