State’s Delay In Filing Appeals In Serious Offences Undermines Victim’s Pursuit Of Justice: Delhi HC
State v. Akhilesh Kumar & Ors.
Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: 9th August 2023
Coram: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
🧾 Background of the Case
In this case, the trial court had acquitted the accused in a serious criminal matter involving charges under Section 302 IPC (murder). The State failed to file an appeal within the statutory period, and instead filed the appeal after an extensive delay of more than 400 days. The State sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, claiming "administrative delay."
⚖️ Observations by the Delhi High Court
The High Court, while dealing with the State’s application for condonation of delay, made significant observations that reflect the importance of timely appeals in criminal jurisprudence, especially in serious crimes such as murder.
1. Delay Undermines Victim’s Rights
The Court emphasized that victims and their families have a fundamental right to see justice being delivered. Delay in filing an appeal by the State in heinous crimes leads to:
Loss of faith in the criminal justice system
Psychological trauma to the victim’s family
Dilution of deterrent effect of law
“The delay in challenging an acquittal in such grave offences cannot be viewed as a mere technical lapse. It strikes at the heart of a victim’s pursuit of justice,” the Court noted.
2. State Has a Special Duty
Being the prosecuting agency, the State carries a special responsibility to act diligently and promptly. The Court observed that:
The prosecution must act with a sense of urgency, especially in cases involving life and liberty.
Administrative delays cannot be an excuse when the liberty of an accused and the rights of the victim are at stake.
“The State cannot take refuge behind bureaucratic procedures to justify the inordinate delay in filing appeals,” said the bench.
3. Lack of Explanation
The Court found that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay of more than a year. The affidavit merely stated routine reasons like:
File movement from one department to another
Time taken in seeking opinion
Processing time at various levels
These were deemed “not sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
🚫 Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal.
🧠 Key Legal Principles Established
Victim’s Right to Justice: Courts must ensure that the rights of victims are not lost due to procedural lapses by the State.
Responsibility of the State: The prosecuting agency has a duty to ensure prompt legal action, particularly in serious and heinous offences.
Condonation of Delay is Not Automatic: Even the State must show “sufficient cause” for delay. Mere bureaucratic inefficiency does not meet this threshold.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: The maxim was invoked to stress how delays by the State could potentially let serious offenders go unpunished.
🔚 Conclusion
The judgment sends a clear message that the State cannot afford lethargy or administrative delays in pursuing criminal appeals, especially in serious offences such as murder. Doing so not only harms the victim's quest for justice but also erodes public confidence in the legal system.
Courts are increasingly recognizing the rights of victims as central to criminal proceedings, and this case stands as a clear reminder that justice for victims cannot be sacrificed at the altar of red tape.
RELATED Blog
0 comments