Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Amin Bhat And Ors vs Union Territory Through Police Station … on 21 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
07
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
MOHAMMAD AMIN BHAT AND ORS. ..... Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Ibrahim, Advocate.
V/s
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION DEVSAR
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Younis, AC
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
ORDER(ORAL)
21.07.2026
CrlM No. 614/2025:
1. The appellants, have challenged judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.09.2023, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kulgam in a case
arising out of FIR No. 72/2016 for offences under
Sections 302, 447, 341, 34 of RPC registered with Police
Station, Devsar. Since the appeal has been filed after
considerable delay of 524 days, the same is accompanied
by an application for condonation of delay.
Page |2
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
2. In the application, it has been submitted that after serving
the period of sentence and upon being released from
custody, the appellants were suffering mentally, physically
and financially. It has also been contended that the
appellants belong to same family and because of their long
incarceration for seven years, their family was in huge
financial debts at the time of their release as the family
had to take loans for survival and to meet day to day
expenses. It has also been submitted that the appellants
were facing medical issues and mental trauma as a result
of which, they could not engage a counsel to seek legal
advice for assailing the judgment of conviction. It has
been submitted that the appellants in absence of any legal
advice were not knowing that they have a right to file
appeal against the judgment of conviction. These
circumstances according to the appellants, prevented them
from approaching the court within the stipulated
limitation period.
3. The respondent UT has filed objections to the application
in which it has been submitted that the appellants have
Page |3
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
not explained the delay in filing the appeal. It has also
been submitted that the ground of financial distress
projected by the appellants is legally untenable and
misconceived. It has been submitted that the assertions
made by the appellants in the application are not
supported by any material.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record of the case.
5. It appears that vide impugned judgment dated 11.09.2023,
the appellants have been convicted of offence under
Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the RPC. The
appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 01.00 lac. In the event of their default in depositing
the amount of fine, they have been directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
6. While considering the prayer of the appellants for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal this Court has to
take into account the fact that the appellants were
undertrials and upon conclusion of trial they were
Page |4
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of seven years. It would have been difficult for them to get
proper legal advice while being in jail. Therefore, their
contention that they could not get proper legal advice for
filing appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction
at the relevant time appears to be plausible.
7. It is an admitted position that the appellants belong to one
and the same family. It would have been very difficult for
the other family members to survive in the absence of
earning members of the family. Therefore, the contention
of the appellants that because of their incarceration, the
family was facing financial difficulties which prevented
the appellants from approaching the counsel for filing the
appeal, appears to be well founded.
8. While considering the prayer of the appellants for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal it has to be taken
into account that the judgment of conviction against a
person operates as a lifelong stigma on such person, which
has adverse consequence on his future pursuits. In such
circumstances, if right of appeal against the judgment of
Page |5
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
conviction is denied to the convict on the technical ground
of limitation, it would work very harshly against him and
in fact it would amount to denial of his right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, a
lenient view has to be taken while considering prayer for
condonation of delay in filing of appeal by a convict.
9. The supreme Court has, in somewhat similar
circumstances in case titled Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No(s)
18045/2024 decided on 02.01.2025, while condoning the
delay of 1637 days in filing the criminal appeal against the
judgment of conviction held that that right to appeal
particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual,
is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the said
case that there is necessity of examining the reasons for
delay in filing an appeal since the dismissal of the appeal
based on mere technicalities, without a substantive
assessment of the appellant’s reasons, would be erroneous.
Page |6
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
10. In the judgment supra, the Supreme Court while relying
upon its previous judgment in case of Dilip S. Dahanukar
Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd (2007) 6 SCC 528 has observed
that the appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an
offender who has been convicted is entitled to avail the
right of appeal which is provided for under Section 374 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been further held that
right of appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the
liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive
definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right.
11. In view of foregoing enunciation of law laid down by
Supreme Court, there is no manner of doubt in holding
while considering a prayer for condonation of delay in
filing appeal against judgment of conviction liberal
approach has to be adopted. Having regard to the reasons
assigned by the appellants as discussed hereinbefore, the
delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the
instant case so that the appeal is considered on its merits.
12. There is yet another reason for considering the delay in
the present case. The UT of J&K has already filed appeal
Page |7
CrlA(S) 4/2025 CrlM(614/2025)
against the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2023 on
the ground that the appellants have been acquitted of the
charge for offence under Section 302 of RPC and have
been convicted of lesser charge under Section 304-II RPC.
The said appeal has been registered as CrlA(AD) No.
5/2024. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the appeal
filed by the appellants herein is also considered along with
said appeal filed by the UT.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of.
CrlA(S) 4/2025:
The appeal is admitted to hearing.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Mr. Younis, learned Assisting Counsel accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent.
List this appeal for hearing along with CrlA(AD) No.
5/2024 on 26.08.2026.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
21.07.2026
AasifWhether the order is speaking Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable Yes/No
