indian penal code (ipc) 1860 - section 302, 307 - punish
ment for murder -- the appellant's sister sandhya (pw.6) called the police jeep passing through the road. the appellant has rightly been convicted under section 302 ipc. 10. the admitted facts, in the case, have been that the love affair of sandhya, sister of the appellant, continued
with prashant (deceased) for 2-3 years. the appellant did not like the relationship and had alter
cations
with prashant (deceased) several
times. later on, prashant (deceased) succumbed to the said injuries and died on 2nd may, 2003. doctor amit kumar (pw.1) found the following internal injuries :
internal injuries to thorax cut injury to the parietal pleura corresponding to the injury no. 1.
internal injury to diaphragm cut injury through and through corresponding to injury no. 1.
peritoneum cut injury to peritoneum corresponding to injury no. 1.
cut injury to left gastric artery, cut injury to outer layer of stomach cut injury to peritoneum corresponding to injury no. 1. injury nos.2, 3, and 4 were simple injuries. the appellant did not cause all the injuries on the vital part of the body. .....the
revision petition was filed on 31st august, 2010 with a delay of 105 days.2. i
consider that leniency of courts being shown to
department for
condonation of delay is
being mis-used. when the order dated 11th february, 2010 was passed by the
learned acmm, and the
department was
advised by its
counsel immediately to assail the order, the department was supposed to take
action within a
reasonable time.
reasonable time in this case was
before expiry of
period of limitation for
filing the
revision petition. it was
standing counsel of the
department who
advised her in this case and the
department was
very well aware that order has to be challenged within a time limit. the
department in
this case did not act and had to be re
minded by the
counsel twice.3. the
explanation given for
condonation of delay is no
explanation and cannot be accepted. i find no force in this
application for
condonation of delay. the
application is
hereby dismissed, with the result, the
revision petition also stands
dismissed.
1. Wh
ether reporters of
local papers may be
allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
1. This application has been made for condonation of delay in filing this Revision Petition against order dated 11th February, 2010. There is a delay of 105 days. The reasons for condonation of delay as stated are that certified copy of order was ready on 18th February, 2010, the department was advised to assail the order, the department wrote a letter to counsel on 22nd march, 2010 seeking fresh advice. The department was advised by letter dated 18th April, 2010 to file a revision petition. The department was reminded again vide communication dated 16th May, 2010 and another communication dated 1st August, 2010. Ultimately, the department on 25th August, 2010 conveyed the decision to file a revision petition against the order dated 11th February,2010 and accordingly the revision petition was filed on 31st August, 2010 with a delay of 105 days.
2. I consider that leniency of courts being shown to department for condonation of delay is being mis-used. When the order dated 11th February, 2010 was passed by the learned ACMM, and the department was advised by its counsel immediately to assail the order, the department was supposed to take action within a reasonable time. Reasonable time in this case was before expiry of period of limitation for filing the revision petition. It was Standing Counsel of the department who advised her in this case and the department was very well aware that order has to be challenged within a time limit. The department in this case did not act and had to be reminded by the counsel twice.
3. The explanation given for condonation of delay is no explanation and cannot be accepted. I find no force in this application for condonation of delay. The application is hereby dismissed, with the result, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.