Sufficient cause for delay and limited interference in acquittal appeals: delay condoned, but leave to appeal refused.

Delay in filing an appeal against acquittal may be condoned on sufficient cause shown under a justice-oriented approach, especially where the record indicates a bona fide intention to appeal and no disqualifying negligence. Applying that standard, the delay was condoned. In considering leave to appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse or no other view is possible. As the acquittal rested on rejected interested testimony, absence of public witnesses, and material inconsistencies, no perversity was shown and leave to appeal was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal against acquittal deserved to be condoned; (ii) whether leave to appeal against the acquittal should be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal against acquittal deserved to be condoned.

Analysis: Condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act depends on sufficient cause, which must be judged on the facts of each case. The expression is applied with a justice-oriented approach, balancing the accrued limitation benefit with the need to advance substantial justice. The Court noted that the appeal files had moved through several official levels and that the intention to appeal was evident, with no such negligence as would bar relief.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal should be granted.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but it must give due weight to the presumption of innocence, the trial court's assessment of witnesses, and the principle that interference is warranted only where the view taken below is perverse or no other view is possible. The trial court had rejected the prosecution case because of reliance on interested witnesses, non-examination of public witnesses, and material inconsistencies about the place and manner of occurrence. No perversity or compelling reason for interference was shown.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal against the acquittal was refused.

Final Conclusion: The delay application succeeded, but the challenge to the acquittal was not permitted to proceed, leaving the respondents' acquittal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay may be condoned only on sufficient cause shown, and leave to appeal against acquittal is declined where the trial court's view is reasonably possible and no perversity is established.

---