Full Judgment
Cr.A.No.2174/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Ramakant Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State.
Heard on I.A.No.21401/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for brevity “Act”.) for condonation of delay As per Office note the appeal is barred by 984 days.
This appeal has been preferred on 4/10/2012 by victim Khuman Singh under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed on 17/11/2009 in Sessions Trial No.4/07 by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, whereby respondent nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 307, 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”.) and 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act.
A bare perusal of contents of the application would reveal that the only ground for condonation, as raised in paragraph 2 therein, is that the complainant was under assurance of the Government Advocate that a appeal would be preferred on behalf of the State against the impugned judgment.
The ground taken by the appellant for condonation of delay can nowise be termed as “sufficient cause”.
within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act.
The application, therefore, sans merit and is rejected.
As an obvious consequence, the appeal also stands dismissed as time barred.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)