Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Phulo Devi @ Phoolo DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that the delay of 249 days could not be condoned.

Summary

The mother of a murder victim filed an appeal against a trial court's acquittal of the accused, but delayed filing the appeal by 249 days. She sought condonation of the delay, citing her severe epilepsy and medical treatment as reasons for the postponement. The court examined the medical prescriptions submitted, finding them insufficient to explain the prolonged delay and noting no evidence that she was unaware of the judgment. The court held that the inordinate delay was not justified and could not be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed, leaving the original appeal dismissed as well.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 249 days in filing an appeal against an acquittal can be condoned under criminal procedure law

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • appeal against acquittal
  • criminal procedure
  • medical evidence
  • epilepsy

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.906 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2021 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Mother of victim, C/o Dinesh Sada R/O Village- Bhagwanpur, Chakshekhu,
                 Ward No. 1, P.S.- Dalsigh Sarai, District- Samastipur

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Ashish Kumar Soni Son of Late Siyavar Sharan Prasad R/O Village-
                 Bhagwanpur, Chakshekhu, Ward No. 1, P.S.- Dalsigh Sarai, District-
                 Samastipur

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :       Mr.Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
                         and
                         HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

5   20-04-2026                         I.A. No.1 of 2026

                                This is an application seeking condonation of delay of

                   249 days in filing of the present appeal against the judgment of

                   acquittal. In paragraph '3' of the application, the appellant has

                   shown the reason which we reproduce hereunder for a ready

                   reference:-

                                       "That petitioner is suffering from epilepsy from
                                       15.08.2024 to 22nd July 2025 in the meantime he
                                       was treated with Dr. Chandradeep Kumar and Dr.
                                       A.P.    Sinha     M.B.B.S,      M.D.      (D.U.)     and
                                       prescription of doctor attached here with."
                                2. It appears that in support of her statement under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.906 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
                                            2/3




          paragraph '3' of the application, the appellant has enclosed a

          photocopy of prescription as Annexure-P/1. We have

          perused the said prescription. On a Letter Pad of one Dr.

          A.P. Sinha, General Physician (Cardiologist), the doctor has

          recorded "C/O Fever, Jaundice, Pain ABD and physical

          weakness". He advised certain medicines. Some medicines

          have been again prescribed on 05.10.2024. The another

          enclosed document is prescription of one Dr. Chandradeep

          Kumar which only mentions that there is burning in the

          abdomen and fever. This Dr. A.P.Sinha advised the

          appellant on 12.12.2025 to undergo USG. There is nothing

          to show that the appellant had purchased any medicine. No

          statement has been made that there is no other family

          member who could have pursued the matter in appeal. The

          appellant applied for the certified copy of the judgment

          after about 11 months from the judgment of acquittal. It is

          not her case that she was not aware of the judgment.

                       3. The documents enclosed with the application do

          not inspire confidence of the Court. The inordinate delay of

          249 days (more than eight months) in filing of the appeal

          has not been explained by the appellant. In such
           Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.906 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     circumstance, we are of the opinion that the delay is such

                     that it cannot be condoned.

                                  4. This application is dismissed. As a result of the

                     dismissal of the application, the appeal stands dismissed.



                                           (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)


                                               ( Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.