ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section

397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgement dated 17.01.2022 passed in CRA No.9638920/2016 by 14th ASJ, Indore, whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the judgement dated 23.09.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.18218/2008 acquitting the respondent no.1 from the offence under Section 294, 427, 452, 323 and

506/34 of IPC.

Facts of the case in short are that vide judgement dated 23.09.2016

passed in Criminal Case No.18218/2008 passed by JMFC, Indore has acquitted the respondent no.1 from the offence under Section 294, 427, 452, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the leaned appellate Court alonwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the appeal. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate

Court has failed to consider the reason for not filing the appeal within the limitation period. The learned appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that a right of appeal is one of the most valuable right given to a litigant and therefore, approach of the Courts in condoning the delay in filing the appeal shall be liberal. It is further submitted that the judgement was passed on 23.09.2016 and application for certified copy was filed on 28.09.2016 and certified copy was received on 16.12.2016, thereafter, the appeal should have been filed on 16.12.2016, but could be filed on 20.12.2016 with delay of only six days, which was bonafide. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has filing finding that the date of the knowledge regarding filing of the appeal on 23.09.2016 while the judgement has been passed on 23.09.2016. It is further submitted that the certified copy clearly shows that the application has been filed for certified copy on 28.09.2016 and that is the real date of knowledge and the date 23.09.2016 is mistakenly typed and only this ground, the appeal has been dismissed. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the learned appellate court for considering the appeal on merits of the case.

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed

Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish

Mishra @ Monu in CRA No.632/2022.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From the face of record, it is crystal clear that the judgement was passed on 23.09.2016 and application for certified copy was filed on 28.09.2016 and certified copy was received on 16.12.2016, but the petitioner has filed the appeal with delay 06 six days i.e. on 20.12.2016 alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condition of delay of six days in filing the appeal.

Malikarjun Kodagali (Dead)

vs. State of Karnataka passed in SLP (Cri.)Nos.7040-7041/2014 dated

12.10.2018

What follows in a trial is often secondary victimisation through repeated appearances in Court in a hostile or a semi-hostile environment in the courtroom. Till sometime back, secondary victimisation was in the form of aggressive and intimidating cross-examination, but a more humane interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has made the trial a little less uncomfortable for the victim of an offence, particularly the victim of a sexual crime. In this regard, the judiciary has been proactive in ensuring that the rights of victims are addressed, but a lot more needs to be done. Today, the rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence in many respects. There needs to be some balancing of the concerns and equalizing their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to both.

The learned appellate Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner got the knowledge on 23.09.2016 i.e. the date of pronouncement of judgement about