Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/45/2025 of The State of Mizoram Vs Sh. Zoremchhunga and Anr. on 11 October 2026
GAHC030006232025 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030006232025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/45/2025
The State of Mizoram
Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. Zoremchhunga and Anr.
S/o Tlanglawma, Durtlang Ramthar, Aizawl2:Sh. Lalmalsawma S/o K. Lalchhanhima Durtlang Aizaw Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Vanneihsiami Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : Crl.A./26/2025
The State of Mizoram
Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. Zoremchhunga and Anr.
S/o Tlanglawma (L)
Durtlang Ramthar
Aizawl
2:Sh. Lalmalsawma
S/o K. Lalchhanhima
Durtlang
Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Vanneihsiami Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
12.10.2026
Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor entered appearance for the applicant and submitted Acknowledgement in respect of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 pursuant to the direction of this Court to take steps through dasti mode on 14.08.2026. The Acknowledgement contained the signatures of both the respondents as well as signatures of two (2) witnesses. None has entered appearance for the two (2) respondents. The instant application is for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Fast Track Court (Rape & POCSO), Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 38/2024 (Criminal Trial No. 569/2024) arising out of All Women P.S Case No. 18/2024, by which the respondent No. 1 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
I have perused the application and I am satisfied with the explanation that is offered in the application at paragraph No. 3 (i - xv). The explanation for the delay, which is offered in the aforementioned paragraph seems to be bonafide and there appears to be no negligence on the part of the applicant, which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal against the acquittal. Accordingly, the delay of 133 days in preferring an appeal against the acquittal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant