$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 204/2023 STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Advocate.

Insp. Neeraj Kumar, P.S.Shahdara.

versus GAURAV JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms.

Madhupreet Nanda and Mr.

Pranav Rajput, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 10680/2023 (delay of 249 days in filing the appeal)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr. PC”], seeking condonation of delay of 249 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.

2. The grounds urged for seeking the condonation of delay are that the impugned judgment was passed on 04^th April, 2022. The petitioner, after passing of the impugned judgment, applied for certified copy of the same, which was made available only on 26^th April, 2022. Petitioner could not file the present appeal within the stipulated period because of the time taken in obtaining the necessary approval.

3. The learned APP relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634 to contend that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice. It is urged that the appeal raises arguable issues and has merit, warranting the grant of leave.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has objected to the application, contending that no cogent reasons have been shown for condoning the delay.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned APP as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. In our view, the appellant has been able to make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Leave Petition.

7. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

8. The application accordingly stands allowed.

CRL.M.A. 10681/2023 (delay of 14 days in re-filing the appeal)

9. Bearing in mind the reasons explained in the application, the delay of 14 days in refilling the Criminal Leave Petition is condoned.

10. The application stands allowed.

CRL.L.P. 204/2023

11. The present application has been filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr. PC.”] seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04^th April, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [“trial court”] in Sessions Case No. 64/2020, arising out of FIR No. 347/2013 registered at Police Station Shahdara, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and Section 306/34 IPC.

12. The learned APP, appearing for the State, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities and does not properly appreciate the evidence. Referring to the testimonies of PW-1 Smt. Raj Rani (mother of the deceased) and PW-4 (father of the deceased), it is submitted that about 10-15 days prior to her death, the deceased met her mother, and at that time, her eyes were swollen and in such meeting, she asked her mother to arrange money within 10-15 days, otherwise, they will not be able to see her again. It is further submitted that this fact speaks in volume and both the star witnesses, that is, PW-1 and PW-4 are consistent on this point and there is ample evidence that soon before her death, there was demand of money by the respondents, and hence, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are duly satisfied and there is a presumption against respondents under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has given undue importance to the minor contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses as they do not affect the core of the prosecution case which has been found to be intact.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the