State's Delay In Filing Appeal In Serious Offences Affects Victims' Right To Fair Trial, Courts Should Be Sensitive In Condoning Delays: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that State's delay in filing appeal in serious offences affects victim's right to fair and complete adjudication and therefore Courts should be sensitive while condoning such delays.

The Court was considering an Application for condonation of delay of 325 days in filing a Revision Petition in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and framed charges for offence under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The single bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, "....this Court is also conscious of the fact that in cases involving serious offences, the rights of the victim and their family are equally significant and cannot be overlooked. Victims, particularly those belonging to marginalized or economically weaker sections of society, often lack the means or resources to pursue independent legal remedies and instead rely on the State machinery to seek justice on their behalf. When the State delays in challenging orders which may adversely affect the victim‟s case, such as an order of discharge, it is not merely a procedural lapse but a setback to the victim‟s pursuit of justice. Such delay may, in effect, prejudice the victim's right to a fair and complete adjudication of the allegations, eroding their faith in the system meant to protect them. Therefore, the Courts must remain sensitive to this dimension while adjudicating applications for condonation of delay in criminal cases involving serious offences."

The Petitioner was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ripin Sood.

Facts of the Case

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Petition could not be filed within the stipulated period as the certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained February 15, 2023 and was sent to the concerned department for its opinion on filing a revision on February 27, 2023. It was submitted that on April 23, 2023, the competent authority took the decision to file the revision petition based on the merits of the case. Subsequently, the file was marked to the present Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on April 26, 2023. H

However, since certain documents from the trial court record were missing from the file, the original paper-book was requisitioned from the concerned Investigating Officer through the pairvi officer on May 05,2023, and the same was received on 19.09.2023. Thereafter, some time was taken to get the annexures translated, and the affidavits along with the draft petition were sent to the concerned DCP for signature in October–November 2023, which were eventually received April 02, 2024.

He argued that due to these circumstances, administrative formalities, and the movement of the file from one table to another, the prescribed limitation period expired, resulting in a delay in filing the present petition. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and thus, deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Anr., [2023INSC885] and State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005).

Reasoning By Court

The Court stressed that mere fact of the Petitioner being a State is not, by itself, a ground to condone delay and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and a day-to-day explanation must be provided where the delay is considerable.

However it went to rule that that State's delay in filing appeal in serious offences affects victim's right to fair and complete adjudication and therefore Courts should be sensitive while condoning such delays.

"In view of the foregoing discussion, and while ensuring a fair balance between the rights of the accused to defend the impugned order and the right of the State to seek judicial scrutiny of a discharge order passed in a case involving the grave offence of murder, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the State. The accused shall, at the appropriate stage, have ample opportunity to contest the revision petition on merits. However, considering the explanation offered for the delay of 325 days, the nature of the offence involved, and the larger interest of justice and society in ensuring that allegations of heinous crimes are subjected to proper adjudication, this Court finds sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition," the Court held.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: State vs. Yogesh @Golu & Anr.

Appearances:

Applicant- Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant,

Respondent- Advocate Ripin Sood, Advocate Yashovir Singh

Click here to read/ download Order