Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Through Police Station … vs Dr. Rehana Wife Of Parvaiz Ahmad Wani on 2 March, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
04
Regular
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlM(154/2025) in CrlA(AS) 5/2025.
Union Territory Through Police Station Pampore.
...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA. (Th. Virtual Mode)
VERSUS
Dr. Rehana Wife of Parvaiz Ahmad Wani.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Adnan Zahoor, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
ORDER
02.03.2026
01. Registration of FIR No. 110/2006 and its consequent
investigation for alleged commission of offences under sections
314, 315, 304, 376 Ranbir Penal Code was carried out by the
Police Station Pampore.
02. The incident which had led to the registration of said FIR
was relatable to death of one-Mst. Rubeena, daughter of Mr.
Ghulam Mohammad Khanday, resident of Meig Pampore, who
suffered death under suspicious circumstances.
03. Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Khanday- the father of the
deceased- Mst. Rubeena had submitted a written application by
reference to section 174 of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of
Criminal Procedure, Svt., 1989 (1938 A. D.).
04. During the course of investigation, the alleged mention of
offence under section 376 Ranbir Penal Code was dropped and
instead offences under section 318 read with Section 120-B of the
Ranbir Penal Code came to be incorporated.
05. On the basis of purported investigation, the respondent- Dr.
Rehana came to be implicated as the sole accused for the
commission of offences under Sections 314, 315, and 304 of the
Ranbir Penal Code.
06. The respondent, as accused, was put to rigour of trial and
ultimately came out with a clean acquittal in terms of judgment
dated 12.06.2024, after having suffered the ordeal of trial of
criminal case for almost 20 years with effect from 31.08.2007,
when the criminal case was instituted on File No. 506/2013before
the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama.
07. The Court of Principal Session Judge, Pulwama, after
forensically dealing with genealogy of circumstances relating to the
death of Mst. Rubeena, the daughter of complainant- Ghulam
Mohammad Khanday, came up with the judgment of acquittal of
the respondent accused- Dr. Rehana.
08. This Court is avoiding reference to the facts relating to
deceased- Mst. Rubeena who was unmarried but came to have a
medical condition which this Court deems it fit not to be referred to
in the present for the sake of maintaining the dignity of deceased-
Mst. Rubeena and her parental family.
09. Under J & K Limitation Act, Svt., 1995 (1938 A. D.) the
period prescribed for filing an appeal against an acquittal judgment
of a Court of Sessions Judge is Ninety (90) days by reference to
article 155 of the Second Division of the Schedule to the J&K
Limitation Act, Svt., 1995 (1938 A. D.) meaning thereby that time
had started running against the then State (now U T) of Jammu
and Kashmir from the very day of pronouncement of judgment
dated 12.06.2024. 90 Days’ limitation period for preferring the
acquittal appeal expired on 11th/12th September, 2024.
10. During the period of limitation, there was no exercise
whatsoever contemplated lest undertaken at the end of the
Government of U T of Jammu and Kashmir to challenge the
judgment dated 12.06.2024.
11. The reason for this Court to observe that there was no such
contemplation at the end of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir to
challenge the acquittal judgment dated 12.06.2024 within the
prescribed limitation period of 90 days’ is that the Government
Order No. 549-LD (ACQ) of 2025 dated 14.01.2025 itself came to
be issued almost six months after the pronouncement of the
acquittal judgment dated 12.06.2024 by the Court of Principal
Session Judge, Pulwama.
12. Even on the basis of the Government Order No.549-LD
(ACQ) of 2025 dated 14.01.2025, the institution of the appeal did
not take place instantly or coinciding with the issuance of said
Government Order but again after wastage of period of more than
one month when the present time-barred acquittal appeal came to
be submitted before this Court on 18.02.2025.
13. In the conondation of delay application- CrlM No. 154/2025
which is literally a two-page application, it has bothered none to
explain the delay even for namesake except stating that the matter
remained under active consideration of the Administrative
Department, where the judgment of acquittal was examined and
the record of the case including the statements of witnesses was
perused.
14. If this Court allows condonation of delay application-CrlM
No. 154/2025 bearing such so-called grounds for the cause of
delay, then surely the law of limitation and condonation of delay is
meant to be re-written for the Government of UT of J & K.
15. This Court is cognizant of position of law which has been
reprised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
condonation of delay relatable to a criminal acquittal appeal in the
case of “State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO And Ors” (AIR 2005 SC
2191). In this case, the proceedings had originated when the
Guwahati High Court had refused to condone the delay with
respect to an application for grant of leave to appeal made under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a judgment
pronounced on 18.12.2002 by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner (Judicial) Dimapur Nagaland.
16. The reasoning given for seeking condonation of delay was
that the judgment was received in the Department on 15th
January, 2003 and without wasting any time, on the same date
relevant documents and papers were put up for necessary action
before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Hqs. Nagaland) who
then on the same very day had considered the matter and
forwarded the file for consideration to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Nagaland. However, in the process, the file along
with note- sheet had gone missing and time was lost in tracing the
file which came to be found on 15.03.2003 resulting in final
opinion coming on 26.03.2003 to file the appeal with the result
that time-barred appeal came to be filed, upon the appointment of
a Special Public Prosecutor, on 14.05.2003.
17. Thus, the sufficient cause being pleaded was sourced to the
fact that within the period of limitation requisite exercise for laying
appeal had been set into effect which consumed time resulting in
delay but nevertheless there was no lapse and laxity on the part of
the State of Nagaland to feel and act concernedly in filing of an in-
time appeal. In para 10 to 18 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has referred to the case law position with respect to
condonation of delay adjudication attending the filing of time-
barred legal proceedings.
18. This Court would have given scope to the
applicant/appellant in the present case if in the application
seeking condonation of delay had it been even whispered much
less pleaded that immediately upon pronounement of the acquittal
judgment dated 12.06.2024, the Government or the concerned
establishment of the Government of UT of J and K, which was
meant to undertake the review of the situation attending the
acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case, had taken up the
responsibility and exercise related therewith within the period of
limitation, and then even if the final action in coming up with
institution of acquittal appeal taking place beyond the prescribed
period of limitation, this Court would have surely accommodated
the applicant/appellant with condonation of delay so as to hear the
appeal on merits. However, since nothing of that sort has been put
up in the condonation of delay application, as such this Court is
not meant to provide palliation to the U T of Jammu and Kashmir
earning condonation of delay as a matter of demand and supply.
19. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit this
Court to apply the rigour of law differently to ordinary litigants and
favourably to the State and its functionaries.
20. In the light of the aforesaid, condonation of delay
application- CrlM No. 154/2025 is hereby dismissed and
consequently, the time-barred appeal shall also stand dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
02.03.2026
Bisma Jan.