IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a significant delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient to justify such delays.

JUDGMENT :

Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal(V) No.68 of 2024

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

2. In the application it is alleged thus – The aforesaid criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palakkad, dated 22/11/2013 in S.C.No.12/2009. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22/01/2014. However, the applicant was under the impression that S.C.No.12/2009 had not been taken up for trial because had it been taken up for trial, he being the complainant/injured would have been served with summons to appear before the court to adduce evidence. The applicant received summons to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palakkad, on 07/09/2024 as a witness in the connected case, that is, S.C.No.503/2008. Only then on making enquiries, he came to know that S.C.No.12/2009 had been disposed of on 22/11/2013 and the accused acquitted without examining him. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to challenge the judgment. Hence, the delay of 3202 days in filing the appeal.

3. The application is opposed by respondents 2, 3 and 4, who have also filed objections.

4. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the connected case, that is, S.C.No.503/2008 is pending trial. Hence, the trial court was directed to give a report as to the stage of the case as well as forward copies of the relevant prosecution records including the committal order in the case. The report showed pendency of another case also, that is, S.C.No.555/2009. As none of the parties were able to give a clear picture regarding the connected cases stated to be pending between the parties, a further report was called for and copies of the records in that case were also directed to be forwarded. From the records now received, the following facts are revealed.

5. The applicant herein filed a private complaint, that is, CMP No.2060/2004, before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 IPC against four accused persons, that is, respondents 2 to 4 herein. The allegations in the complaint are as follows – Accused 1 to 3, who are siblings, that is, Moidu ; Hameed; Mustafa along with their relative, the fourth accused, that is, Abdu Rahiman, due to their enmity towards the complainant, and with the intention of causing his death, on 31/03/2004 at about 11 p.m. while he was a pillion-rider in the motorcycle ridden by his friend Babu, came in a jeep from behind and intentionally dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which he and Babu fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The complainant was admitted in the Elite Mission hospital, Thrissur, and his friend Babu in a hospital at Pattambi. As no proper investigation was conducted by the police, he filed the complaint alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

6. After complying with the necessary formalities, the jurisdictional magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Palakkad (C.P.No.37/2005). The case was taken on file as S.C.No.12/2009 and made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palakkad, for trial and disposal. Before the trial court, A1, A2 and A4 appeared. A3 failed to appear and hence the case against him was split up and refiled. After complying with the necessary formalities, a charge under the aforementioned Sections was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. During the pendency of the trial, A1 absconded and hence the trial proceeded against A2 and A4 alone. It is reported that S.C.No.832/2014, that is, the split case against A1 is pending consideration before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palakkad. As far as the case against A3 is concerned, the same is pending in the long pending register as L.P