Ummed Deviv.The State of Rajasthan and Anr.
[Criminal Procedure Code 1973 — Section 378 — Condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal by victim and duty of Constitutional Courts to provide legal assistance]
Constitutional courts should be alive to the travails of litigants, and where delay is minimal and legal assistance inadequate, courts have a duty to provide quality legal assistance or appoint an Amicus Curiae rather than dismissing appeals purely on technical grounds of delay without a condonation application.
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was delayed by 19 days and there was no application to condone the delay.
4. The criminal appeal, from an order of acquittal, is by the mother of the victim. The allegation was also of dowry demand and harassment leading to death.
5. True that the appeal should have been accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, but the Constitutional Courts should also be alive to the travails of a litigant and if the legal assistance is not adequate, it has a duty to provide quality legal assistance to the litigants, whether it be a victim or an accused. We also notice that none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was posted before Court, then an Amicus or an Advocate from the Legal Services Authority should have been appointed.
6. In the totality of the circumstances as also considering the minimal delay occasioned, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the matter on merits.
7. We set aside the order of the High Court and restore the appeal to its files. We request the High Court to hear the matter on its merits.
8. The appeals are allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 25, 2026.