This application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 82 (Eighty Two) days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment dated 25.09.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Session Case No. 1(NL)/2007 (State of Assam v. Naba Bora and 2 Ors.) acquitting the accused persons therein holding that the charge against the accused persons could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, one Paye Mosin, wife of the deceased, namely, Tina Mohsin preferred an appeal along with this application seeking condonation of delay of 82 (Eighty Two) days in preferring the connected appeal. On the receipt of the application aforesaid, notice was ordered to be issued on the respondents including the accused persons in the aforesaid Session Case asking them to show cause as to why the delay of 82 (Eighty Two) days in preferring the connected appeal should not be condoned.

3. The respondents/accused persons entered appearance and contended that the delay of 82 days should not be condoned in preferring the connected appeal since the applicant/appellant could not assign good reason for not preferring appeal in time. Such a contention was also supported by Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

4. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.Kaushik for the applicants referring to proviso to Section 372 CrPC submits that before the Amendment Act of 2008, there was no scope for the victim to prefer an appeal against a judgment of acquittal etc. After the Amendment Act of 2008, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC has been incorporated giving the victim a right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate sentence.

5. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel submits that though the Limitation Act has prescribed limitations for applications/appeal/revision/review etc. but in view of incorporation of proviso to Section 372 CrPC, no corresponding amendment there-for has been made prescribing the period of limitation in respect of appeal filed by the victim as contemplated in Section 2(ww) of the CrPC.

6. Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel contends that the legislation of proviso to Section 372 CrPC creates a very special right in favor of the victim which is evident from a comparative reading of proviso to section 372 CrPC on one side and section 377/378 which deal with appeal against acquittal etc by the State/its instrumentality/complainant on the other side. In that connection, it has been submitted that while in section 377/378 CrPC, the legislature choose to use the word “may” whereas in proviso to section 372 CrPC, the legislature use the word “shall”.

7. Uses of such words clearly demonstrates the intention of legislature which, according to Mr. P.K.Tewari, firmly show that in matter of appeal against acquittal etc by the victim of crime, law put him/her on a much higher pedestal than the pedestal, offered to State/its instrumentality/complainant vis-a vis appeal against the order of acquittal etc. The fact that the victim, as has been held by different High courts including our own High Court, is not required to obtain any leave before preferring an appeal against an order of acquittal etc (which is mandatory in case of appeal against an order of acquittal etc by the State/its instrumentality/complainant) makes such conclusion inevitable.

8. Mr. P.K.Tewari further submits that the reason for assigning the special place to the victim of crime in matter of appeal against acquittal etc is not far to find since the victim of crime, despite being the person who has to bear the brunt of the crime in question, is relegated to a position of insignificance in almost all the criminal trials, conducted in our country. In most of the cases, the cries of the victim get lost completely in din and bustle fervently raised for perpetrators o